Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Argyll, in the room of Frederick Alexander Macquisten, Esquire, K.C., deceased [Mr. James Stuart.]

BRITISH MUSEUM.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a petition which they have to submit to this House annually, explaining the financial position and praying for aid. The petition recites the funded income of the trustees and points out that the establishment is necessarily attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds, and the Trust cannot with benefit to the public be carried on without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with this Prayer:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge as to your House shall seem meet."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

Mr. Kirk wood: Would they accept the Government if we offered it to them?
Petition referred to the Committee of Supply.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider bringing before the Council of the League of Nations the German aggression against Poland, in order that the Covenant of the League may be put into operation under Article 17, as a result of which it would be incumbent upon the neutrals, members

of the League, under Article 16, to sever all trade and financial relations with Germany, to prohibit any intercourse with Germans, and to prevent all financial, commercial or personal contacts between Germany and the nationals of any other State, whether a member of the League or not?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The hon. Member will be aware that the Polish Government did not appeal to the Council of the League of Nations, either during the course of their dispute with the German Government or upon the invasion of their country by the German forces. His Majesty's Government do not consider that it would be opportune at this stage to refer these matters to the Council.

Mr. Mander: Would the Government bear in mind that if action of this kind were taken, it would very much strengthen our position, from the point of view of international law, in regard to any action that we may have to take later on in dealing with neutrals?

Mr. Butler: All these considerations have been borne in mind, but I cannot alter the answer I have given to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mander: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the undesirability of creating the impression that the League is to be used only against Left Wing aggressors?

Mr. Gallacher: Was not the League revived in order to make a demonstration against the Soviet Union, and is it not now dead again?

Mr. Noel-Baker: When we are reconstructing the world after the war, will the Government bear in mind what we have lost through not using the Covenant of the League?

Mr. Butler: I am satisfied that we have done our best to use the Covenant of the League.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Would the right hon. Gentleman bring forward at the same time the case of Russian aggression against Finland?

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. SUMNER WELLES'S VISITS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether any arrangement has been


made with the Government of the United States of America to secure information for the British Government concerning the significance of the recent visits of Mr. Sumner Welles, and any conclusions or proposals arising therefrom?

Mr. Butler: We are content to rely on the courtesy of the United States Government for any information they may wish to give us arising out of this important visit.

Mr. Sorensen: Am I to understand that no approach was made to the United States respecting such a report?

Mr. Butler: We are so satisfied with our relations with the United States Government that we are content to rely on their courtesy to keep as informed.

Mr. Sorensen: If the Government get the report and information from them, will there be an opportunity of discussing the matter in this House?

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTI-BRITISH ACTIVITIES, CHINA.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the activities, in Tsinan, of an organisation known as the Anti-British Committee; whether this committee purports to be carrying on a trade boycott against British goods; of whom it consists; and by whom it is sponsored?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. An Anti-British Committee exists in Tsinan and has been carrying on an active boycott against British goods. The committee professes to be private, and its chairman is a Chinese. My Noble Friend is calling for a further report on the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Is the chairman the only member of this organisation who is Chinese?

Mr. Butler: It is in order to get a clearer picture of this committee that we have asked for this report.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is there any doubt that this committee is sponsored by the Japanese?

Mr. Butler: There is very little doubt.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Prime Minister whether a British news service in Chinese is available in North China to counter the untrue anti-British propaganda which is being widely circulated in that area?

The Minister of Information (Sir John Reith): I have been asked to reply. There is an extensive Reuter news service to North China, but the supply of news to Chinese papers is the virtual monopoly of news agencies controlled by the authorities. News broadcasts in Chinese are given daily from Hong Kong and Shanghai.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Price: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement on the conversations which have recently taken place between the Japanese Ambassador in London and Lord Halifax; and, in particular, whether any attempt has been made by the Japanese to obtain from His Majesty's Government their good offices in bringing about contact between the Chinese Government at Chungking and Mr. Wang Ching-wei?

Mr. Butler: The Japanese Ambassador, in accordance with established practice, calls at the Foreign Office from time to time to discuss matters of common interest to our two countries. No such suggestion as is described in the second part of the Question has been made.

Mr. Price: Does the statement made by the Prime Minister to me last January, that the only Government recognised as the Government of China is the Government of Chungking, still hold good?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; all statements by the Prime Minister hold good.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the attention of the Government been called to the important statement made by the Chinese Ambassador to this country the other day, on the subject of the so-called Government of Wang Ching-wei?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-FRENCH-RUSSIAN NEGOTIATIONS.

Mr. Riley: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the termination of the invasion of Finland by Russia, he will


now consider the advisability of issuing a White Paper setting forth the negotiations for an entente between Great Britain, France and Russia which preceded the invasion of Poland by Germany and Russia?

Mr. Butler: The Government's decision on this matter was conveyed to the House by the Prime Minister on 6th March, and recent events do not cause them to modify that decision.

Mr. Riley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the country is entitled to know the grounds on which the negotiations broke down, and is he not aware that there is a great desire to get the facts as to what led up to this failure?

Mr. Butler: I appreciate the hon. Member's anxiety to know the full facts, but he will remember that the Prime Minister said that we had had consultations with the French Government, and, after a full review of the circumstances, had decided not to publish a White Paper.

Mr. Attlee: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that a statement was made to this House that we should have the facts? After all, it is this House and this Government that have to decide, not other countries.

Mr. Butler: This Government has decided.

Mr. Mander: Is the only account we an: to have M. Molotov's account?

Oral Answers to Questions — FINLAND.

Mr. Price: asked the Prime Minister whether, after the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had approached His Majesty's Government with a request to pass on terms of peace with Finland which could not be considered, any steps were taken to find out whether the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regarded these as final terms and were not prepared to negotiate on them?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. It was considered at the time that the Soviet Government would not be prepared to modify these terms, and this judgment has been confirmed by subsequent events.

Mr. G. Strauss: Does the Minister appreciate that it was the British Government, and not the German Government, that the Soviet Union approached for the settlement of this matter?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; that is fully appreciated.

Mr. H. Strauss: Is it not probable that they did so on the suggestion of the German Government?

Mr. Butler: That is not necessarily so at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

BOMBING ATTACK, STEAMSHIP "DOMALA."

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any official inquiry has been or will be held into the circumstances surrounding the bombing by a German aircraft of the British steamship "Domala?"

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): The circumstances of this attack have been the subject of investigation, as is the practice in the case of all such enemy operations.

Sir A. Southby: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the attack was made from mast-head height, and that no British fighter aircraft took off?

Sir K. Wood: No Sir.

Mr. McGovern: Is it the case that the German aircraft indicated by signs that they were British aircraft?

SUB-CONTRACTING.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the business books of the sub-contracting firm are open to the scrutiny of his accountants, in all cases where there is subcontracting, with regard to a Government contract; and whether the terms of the sub-contract itself are disclosed to his accountants?

Sir K. Wood: It is the normal practice of my Department to include in all negotiated contracts provision for the supervision of sub-contract prices where the items are substantial, and for Departmental access to sub-contractors' works and records for the purpose of making


independent costs estimates. As regards the second part of the Question, no difficulty has been experienced in obtaining any requisite information.

Mr. Gibson: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Department require the disclosure of any interest that the contracting firm may have in the sub-contracting firm?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will put that question down.

LEAVE (FRANCE).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that officers and airmen of the Royal Air Force in France receive, in effect, shorter periods of leave than those stationed in the United Kingdom; and will he take steps to remedy this grievance?

Sir K. Wood: The amount of leave of absence from the unit is broadly the same both at home and in France. I appreciate that more time is spent in travelling by personnel serving in France than by those serving in this country. I am afraid, however, that it is impossible to compensate for the extra time spent in travelling, because the number of personnel who can be absent at the same time from units overseas and the transport available are limited.

Mr. Simmonds: Would my right hon. Friend consider, in view of those difficulties, allowing the officers and men overseas to accumulate the time that they spend in travelling, so that when they are posted to a home station they may take that extra accumulated leave?

Sir K. Wood: Officers commanding may authorise the carrying forward, within the leave year, of any leave not taken, provided that they are satisfied that special circumstances precluded its being taken during the period for which it was granted.

Mr. Simmonds: Will my right hon. Friend satisfy me that this time which is spent in travelling will be considered by the air officers commanding?

Sir K. Wood: I cannot extend the answer I have just given.

AMERICAN AIRCRAFT (PURCHASE).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether negotiations for

further purchases of American aircraft by the United Kingdom have been discontinued?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, negotiations are proceeding normally.

Mr. Simmonds: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a growing opinion that if he would take greater advantage of the wood-working industry in this country to produce more wooden aircraft, he could considerably curtail the expenditure of dollars in purchases from American firms?

Sir K. Wood: Considerable advance is being made in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend, but there are other considerations which have to be taken into account in regard to these American purchases.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION (LONDON-LISBON SERVICE).

15. Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he the now announce the date for the commencement of the feeder air service between London and Lisbon to connect with the Pan-American Clipper service?

Sir K. Wood: While the negotiations with the countries concerned in the operation of this service have not yet been concluded, I am hopeful that the necessary permits will be received shortly, and when these are received I shall be able to announce a definite date for the inauguration of the service.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

JEWS AND ARABS (ENLISTMENT).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Jews and how many Arabs, respectively, have enlisted in Palestine for service overseas since the war began?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Since the war began 1,709 Jews and 392 Arabs have enlisted in Palestine for service overseas. These figures include the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps already in France, which contains 742 Jews and 306 Arabs.

Mr. T. Williams:: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he could not give the


House the figures when they were asked for last week, and since there are two Jewish volunteers to every one Arab, does not that definitely prove the loyalty of the Jews to this country?

Mr. MacDonald: The reason why I did not give the figures last week was the reason I gave in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's Question, which was that the exact figures were not available in this country, and I had to get them from the High Commissioner. With regard to the second part of the Question, nobody doubts the loyalty of the Jews to this country, and we very greatly appreciate it. We appreciate the help we are getting from both the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine.

Mr. Williams: May I ask—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Williams: On a point of Order. Statements have been made, presumably officially, that there were 700 members of the Auxiliary Pioneer Corps which left Palestine for France. The right hon. Gentleman now intimates that there are about 1,100 members of that Corps, and surely I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the first so-called official statement of 700 compared with the 1,100 to which he has referred?

Mr. MacDonald: I am afraid I have not seen the official statement to which the hon. Member refers, and I very much doubt whether it was official. The figures I have given are the accurate figures of the unit serving in France.

Mr. McGovern: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many M.Ps. have volunteered for service?

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (GERMAN AGENTS).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that amongst the Jewish illegal immigrants into Palestine there are German citizens, many of whom are German spies; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this illegal traffic on that account?

Mr. M. MacDonald:: Yes, Sir. Though local inquiries have not yet produced conclusive proof, the High Commissioner has strong reasons for suspecting that the passengers of two ships which about a

month ago landed illegal immigrants in Palestine included German agents. These persons, together with other illegal immigrants, are held in detention camps. As regards the second part of the Question, His Majesty's Government and the Palestine Government are taking various measures to suppress the traffic in illegal immigrants.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman state exactly what he implies when he states that many of these illegal immigrants may or may not be German spies?

Mr. MacDonald: I cannot add to the answer which I have given, which was that the High Commissioner has strong reasons to suppose, from information at his disposal, that some of these people are German agents.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister say how many have been detained?

Mr. MacDonald: Some hundreds.

Mr. Lipson: Has my right hon. Friend any reason to believe that these German agents are Jews?

Mr. MacDonald: As I say, we have not any conclusive proof, but from the information we have received we understand that there are strong possibilities that some of the Jewish members of these parties are German agents.

Mr. Leach: Would they not be in serious danger of their lives in such company in such a ship?

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE AND MALAYA (LABOUR DISPUTES).

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, how many cases of labour disputes in Singapore and Malaya, since 3rd September, 1939, are traceable to Communist agitation; how many men have been involved; what was the nature of the work on which they had been engaged; and what measures is he taking to counteract this menace?

Mr. M. MacDonald: In view of the length of the answer, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Mr. Creech Jones: Is it not time that this bogy about Communist causes of industrial disputes was destroyed, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the workers concerned are suffering from perfectly legitimate industrial grievances?

Captain Graham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not a bogy, but the actual fact?

Mr. Paling: So are wages.

Following is the reply:

It is difficult to give exact figures of the numbers of disputes attributable to Communist agitation or of the number of men involved; but as regards major disputes, involving more than 1,000 men, there have been at least four in Singapore and one in the Federated Malay States. Including less important strikes, the industries affected have been, among others, saw-mills, rattan factories, building, pineapple canning, rubber mills, rubber packing, engineering shops, lighters, coal mining and the Singapore Harbour Board. Where the law has been broken by Communist agitators, the offenders have been dealt with by prosecution, deportation in the case of aliens, the requirement of residence in restricted areas, the seizure of duplicating plant used for Communist literature and by normal police measures. Generally there has been an absence of actual disturbance.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Enoch Azu, four other electors and eight elders of the State of Manya Krobo in the Eastern Province of the Gold Coast Colony, have been convicted as political prisoners for playing on the drums in their own houses; what is the reason for this conviction and what is its political character?

Mr. M. MacDonald: No, Sir. I have, however, asked the Governor for a report and will communicate with the hon. Member on receipt of his reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS (HARBOUR ADMINISTRATION).

22. Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any

information about the labour trouble between the harbour workers and employers at Port Louis, Mauritius; whether the employers are seeking to get the loading and unloading of cargoes done at prices considerably below the ruling rates; and whether the profit-sharing scheme formed in 1938 has been suspended?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have received no information suggesting that there is any labour trouble between the harbour workers and employers at Port Louis or that the employers are seeking to reduce loading and unloading charges. As regards the last part of the Question, I understand that a company was formed in 1938 with a view to undertaking stevedoring work at Port Louis on a profit-sharing basis, but my information suggests that they have not been successful in obtaining any material share of the business. I may add that a commission has been appointed by a resolution of the Legislature in Mauritius to study the whole question of harbour administration and charges as part of a general examination of the transport system in the Colony.

Mr. Paling: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether this labour trouble is in actual being, as I have very definite information to that effect?

Mr. MacDonald: I will certainly make inquiries, and perhaps it would help me if the hon. Member would let me have the information at his disposal.

Mr. Creech Jones: I take it from the reply to this Question that this is a perfectly genuine industrial agitation and is not due to Communist activities?

Mr. MacDonald: I am not certain that any agitation exists.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (MINE-WORKERS' STRIKE).

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the strike of mineworkers at the Mufilira copper mine in Northern Rhodesia; and whether he will make a statement on the rates of wages and conditions of employment at this mine?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. I am in telegraphic communication with the Governor on the matter. Both the Acting


Chief Secretary and the Labour Commissioner in Northern Rhodesia have gone to Mufilira to assist in any way that they can in promoting a settlement. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I have asked the Governor for complete information and will send it to the hon. Member as soon as I receive it.

Dr. Guest: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence as far as possible to see that these men get good wages and good conditions, which they have not had, and prevent profiteering in the Colonial Empire at this time, which surely is just as important as it is in this country?

Mr. MacDonald: I entirely agree.

Mr. Paling: Could that information, and also as regards the profits of these companies, be included in the Official Report so that we could all have it?

Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps the best thing would be for the hon. Member to put down a Question immediately after the House reassembles, when I could publish the information in the Official Report.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister told us about the authorities going there to secure a settlement. Does he mean by that, driving the men back to work, or going into their grievances with a view to remedying them?

Mr. MacDonald: It means offering their good offices to the two sides in the dispute, with complete impartiality between the two.

Mr. Maxton: What do the men say?

Mr. Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend say what demands have been made?

Mr. MacDonald: The working people have put forward a number of demands for improved conditions. They are very long, and I cannot recount them in the course of an answer to a Question, but if hon. Members wish for information, and will put down Questions, I will supply all the information at my disposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS (DRIVING REGULATIONS).

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that youths under 21 years of age are not

permitted to drive agricultural tractors on the highway whilst they are allowed to drive two and a-half ton lorry; that this is a hardship to farmers; and will he take steps to get the law amended?

The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that action has now been taken which has altered the legal position as stated in his Question. The effect of a Defence Regulation which has just been made is that a person of 17 years of age may lawfully drive an agricultural tractor on the road, not merely "in the course of the internal operations of a farm" but also on the public road from one farm to another.

ROAD HAULAGE (PETROL RATIONING).

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take regarding the dissatisfaction among many firms in Burnley with the inadequate petrol supplies for delivery of goods by road; and whether he is aware that the policy of instructing firms to send by rail is adding to the difficulties of the railways, who cannot supply containers for many classes of goods or cope with the existing traffic?

Captain Wallace: As the amount of fuel available for the movement of goods by road is limited, it is necessary, in order that it shall be used to the best advantage in the national interest, to divert to other means of transport a certain amount of traffic normally carried by road. In any case where the Regional Transport Commissioner is satisfied that reasonable alternative transport facilities are not available for essential traffic, supplementary fuel rations for movement by road will be granted. Restrictions in the supply of petrol are, I regret, bound to cause inconvenience, but I am not aware that there is any special ground for dissatisfaction in Burnley. The number of railway containers available for the country as a whole is limited, but I understand that the present requirements of Burnley firms are being met.

Mr. Burke: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a number of firms, the names of which I have sent him, are complaining that they are told to transport their goods on the railways, when the railways are absolutely choked with goods which they cannot move at the present time?

Captain Wallace: I am afraid that that does not alter the answer which I have given. We have a certain amount of petrol to allocate for goods transport, and we must use it to the best advantage in the national interest, irrespective of the interests of particular firms.

Mr. Silverman: Is the Minister aware that one result of the congestion on the railways produced by the matters to which my hon. Friend has called attention has been that mills all over Lancashire have been held up because they cannot get coal delivered, and that the loss in the value of export goods resulting from that is really very large indeed; and cannot he do something to assist in that matter?

Captain Wallace: There is another Question on coal on the Paper, to which I shall reply in a moment.

Mr. J. Hollins: Would the Minister consider advising those people who cannot send goods by rail to take advantage of the canal system which has been driven out of business by the railway companies?

Captain Wallace: There is also another Question on canals on the Paper.

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will release extra supplies of petrol to firms in Burnley for road-haulage work in order that the rail ways may more easily deal with the problem of improving the serious position in regard to the town's coal supply?

Captain Wallace: I am not aware that the railways are experiencing any difficulty in transporting coal to Burnley.

Mr. Burke: Does the Minister not know that last week in Burnley 8,000 looms were stopped because they could not get coal, and that if he will refer to the Secretary for Mines he will find out what is the state of coal supplies in Burnley at the present time?

Captain Wallace: I have consulted with my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines, and I must still stick to my statement, that I am not aware that the railways have experienced any difficulty in transporting coal to Burnley.

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Transport what instructions have been issued by his Department or by Regional

Commissioners regarding petrol supplies for long-distance road-haulage; and what mileage in the case of Burnley is regarded as a long distance?

Captain Wallace: No hard and fast rules have been laid down as to what is or is not long-distance haulage. The essential criterion in dealing with applications for supplementary rations is whether the traffic should, in the national interest, go by road or whether, in view of the shortage of fuel, it should preferably be carried by some other form of transport.

Mr. Burke: Is the Minister not aware that 70 to 75 miles has been laid down by the local officer as being too far for petrol supplies to be allowed and that there are other firms who distribute in Burnley from longer distances, with consequent great disadvantage to Burnley firms from the point of view of competition? Will he look into the general position in Burnley as I can assure him that it is very unsatisfactory?

Captain Wallace: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked very carefully at the general position at Burnley, in view of the representations made to me by him on more than one occasion. But it is not a question of any arbitrary limit of 75 miles or any other distance; it is a question of how urgent it is to move particular goods and whether there are goods which, without being detrimental to the national interest, might be moved by some other form of transport, thereby relieving petrol for more urgent uses.

CANALS.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will encourage the carriage of coal and goods by making more use of existing canals; and what steps is he taking to revive this important form of transport?

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Minister of Transport what steps have been taken to make full use of the canal system of the country, especially in view of the fact that before the war some of these canals were operating below capacity owing to the shortage of bargemasters?

Captain Wallace: The question of the fuller use of the canals has been very carefully considered both by the Regional Transport Commissioners and by the Canal (Defence) Advisory Committee, on


which are represented the waterways and carriers, as well as the various Government Departments concerned in getting traffic moved. Steps have been taken to bring the facilities offered by the canal carriers to the notice of traders and Government Departments.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is taking special measures to fill vacancies for canal boatmen, and at the last meeting of the Canal (Defence) Advisory Committee representatives of the employers and of labour agreed to make jointly an immediate inquiry into the labour position. I have also asked the representatives of the industry whether, upon the basis of some measure of financial assistance from the Government, they can formulate practical plans for carrying more traffic by canal.

Brigadier-General Brown: Will the Minister consider the case of the Kennet Canal, west of Reading, and use his influence to get the Great Western Railway to take off the embargo which has been on the canal for many years?

Captain Wallace: I hope the canal people will consider every canal in putting forward their proposals.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to see that railway-owned canals are brought back into use? Can he make grants available for clearing weeds in such canals as the Kennet and Avon, through which you cannot get a motor boat drawing from 2 feet 8 inches at the moment?

Captain Wallace: I think that before we distribute any money we shall have to make sure that it will be well spent and that any canal which can be opened will give us a good return.

Mr. J. Hollins: Will the Minister consider that canals, as a means of transport in bulk, are the cheapest form of transport in the country and have been deliberately put out of commission by the railways? Will steps be taken to encourage canal companies to put their waterways into operation and thus save petrol on the roads?

Captain Wallace: The fact that I have been able to say in the last part of my answer that we are asking representatives of the industry to work out a plan on the

basis of some financial assistance from the Government is, I think, the best assurance I can give to the House that we are taking this matter seriously.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the attitude of the railways on this matter very unsatisfactory?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN BROADCAST PROPAGANDA.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Minister of Information whether his attention has been drawn to the nightly talks at 10·30 on a short wavelength of 51 metres broadcast by a new station, whose signature tune is "Loch Lomond," to the effect that international Jewish finance and Continental freemasonry are pursuing a policy of world domination by wars and revolutions and credit monopoly; whether he proposes to reply to this propaganda; and whether he will confer with the British Broadcasting Corporation to demolish these arguments objectively instead of avoiding the issues by merely labelling them as German propaganda?

Sir J. Reith: Yes, Sir, I know of these broadcasts, and the station is being watched. Arguments of enemy propaganda are constantly being countered by the B.B.C. and otherwise.

Captain Ramsay: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that most of the neutral countries in Europe and a large and ever-increasing number of people in this country consider this question to be important, and requiring examination, and in view of the admirable way in which the B.B.C. and the Ministry of Information are designed and equipped to deal with such a question, he would consider taking up the matter and not avoiding the issue?

Sir J. Reith: I thought I had taken up the matter. I said that the specific arguments of enemy propaganda are constantly being countered by the B.B.C. and otherwise, but, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not satisfied with what has been done so far, I would like to assure him that we will try to do better.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from what country this station is broadcasting?

Sir J. Reith: It is almost certainly known to come from Germany—we think, about 100 miles from Berlin.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that the more lies the Germans tell the better it is for everybody?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ELDERLY PENSIONERS (EXEMPTION).

Mr. Woodburn: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is in accordance with Admiralty instructions that naval pensioners of over 50 years of age, mobilised since the outbreak of war, are exempt from service on sea-going vessels unless they are medically fit and volunteer for such service?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill): It has been necessary to employ men of certain branches at sea, up to the age of 55, whether they are volunteers or not. All men are medically examined before being drafted to sea to ensure that they are fit for sea service. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has previously stated, as and when the supply of trained younger men is sufficient to meet all Fleet requirements, the older men will be relieved, and this process is already going on.

CLYDE RESORTS (BOAT HIRING).

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the representations made by the Largs Town Council on the subject of the restriction on the hiring of small boats and motor-boats this summer, which will bring ruin to the boat-hirers at Clyde resorts; whether he is aware that many young people go with their parents to these resorts, but will not do so if boating facilities are not available; and, as this would be a blow to family life, will he consider these restrictions?

Mr. Churchill: I have not seen the representations to which the hon. Member refers. No restrictions have yet been imposed, but the considerations advanced by the hon. Member will certainly be taken into account in deciding on the scope of any restrictions deemed to be necessary.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this will be received as glad news on the Clyde, because there

was a feeling in the Clyde area that the First Lord of the Admiralty was not seeing to it that the Firth of Clyde was being properly safeguarded against German submarines?

Mr. Churchill: I am not at all sure about that point. We have some evidence to the contrary.

SEAMEN'S FUNERALS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the unfortunate contrast in the character of the funerals at Blyth, Northumberland, of three German airmen and an unknown British sailor; and whether, whilst preserving the traditions of Britain respecting the treatment of enemies killed in warfare, he will take all steps to secure that British seamen who lose their lives at sea shall be accorded dignified and considerate interment?

Mr. Churchill: No German airmen have been buried at Blyth. Two unidentified bodies of unknown nationality which were washed ashore on 14th February and 6th March respectively were buried by the local civil authorities in accordance with the usual practice. The naval authorities always endeavour to provide proper funeral ceremonies for British naval personnel who lose their lives at sea, and I am asking that during the war this practice shall be extended as widely as possible to cover the kind of case the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Sorensen: While appreciating the reply of the First Lord, may I ask him whether he is aware that this case has aroused considerable interest and feeling and that the Question was directed to securing the very reply which the right hon. Gentleman has made, which, I am sure, will give great satisfaction?

Mr. Churchill: I am glad that the hon. Member put the Question down. It is certainly one which requires attention.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: While the First Lord's answer will, I am sure, give great satisfaction, in view of the tremendous interest which has been taken in the matter, may I ask him whether his answer will apply to all seamen as well as naval men? Would it be possible to ask the Seamen's Mission to conduct a service somewhat in keeping with the sacrifices which the seamen have to make?

Mr. Churchill: Yes, Sir. I intended my reply to apply not only to the regular personnel of the Navy, but to the large number of British seamen who are risking their lives every day in the North Sea in essential measures for our protection. I cannot guarantee that there will be available at every port and at all times a naval firing party, but we will do the best we can to make it available for all these cases which the hon. Member has in mind. May I express my obligation that the matter has been brought forward in this way?

Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no merchant seaman who loses his life shall be buried during the course of this war by the public assistance authority, but shall be given an appropriate burial?

Mr. Churchill: I cannot add to what I have said, but I entirely agree with the hon. Member.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prompt action of the seamen's missioner and the local vicar redeemed it from drabness and bareness?

REQUISITIONED SHIP (HOLT LINE).

Mr. Maxton: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the ship, built for the Holt Line in the Dundee shipyard, taken over by the Admiralty, in September; for conversion to naval purposes has proved satisfactory; and whether it is now proposed to turn the ship back to merchant purposes?

Mr. Churchill: Yes, Sir. Until she is needed for Admiralty service, she will be employed on commercial service.

Mr. Maxton: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the expenditure on this ship has been undone, and why all the shipyard labour has been wasted?

Mr. Churchill: It is rather a lengthy story, but I think I could carry conviction to the hon. Member.

SCAPA FLOW (DEFENCES).

Sir A. Southby: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the recent air raid upon the naval base at Scapa Flow, he is considering a re organisation of the defences?

Mr. Churchill: The defences of Scapa Flow and of all naval bases are reviewed

constantly in particular relation to the results of enemy attack. We must probably expect attacks of this kind as a regular feature of the war in the coming months, and we shall do our best to resist them and to return them. The evident desire of the enemy to portray this petty and ill-directed raid on Scapa Flow as an important military affair is significant and encouraging.

Sir A. Southby: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied, after the recent air raid on Scapa Flow, that there is that efficient co-operation between the three Services which should exist? Would it not be better if the Navy took over the responsibility for the whole defence of the port?

Mr. Churchill: I think a very good arrangement exists, and there is the closest liaison between the three Services.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

MECHANISATION AND AERO COMPANY, LIMITED.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will state the amount paid to the Nuffield Mechanisation Company by way of fee for managing the production of the Bofors gun; and whether any other payment whatsoever is made to that company for work in connection therewith?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Burgin): It would be contrary to established practice to state the fee paid to Mechanisation and Aero Company, Limited. The only payments made other than the fee are those recouping the firm for its actual expenditure on the work of preparing the factory and producing the guns.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister say on what basis that remuneration is based?

Mr. Burgin: The principle upon which fees are paid for managing agency factories are settled by the Government as a general policy applicable to all Service Departments.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister state the basis on which remuneration is paid for, the manufacturing process?

Mr. Burgin: That cannot be done by Question and Answer. Quite obviousy, managerial fees for conducting an agency factory producing a Service equipment


must follow in the circumstances, and the general principles are laid down by the Government.

CENTRAL REGISTER.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Supply the number of persons who have been recruited to his staff from the Central Register since the outbreak of war; and what percentage this is of persons recruited in these grades?

Mr. Burgin: I regret that the information is not immediately available as it involves reference to outstations, but I will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. Parker: Will the Minister publish these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. When I have obtained the figures and communicated them to the hon. Member, there will be no difficulty in publishing them in the Official Report. A large number of appointments are made to outstations, and I must secure a return of them before I give the hon. Member a reply.

WASTE FOODSTUFFS (SALVAGE).

Mr. Benson: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will give a list of the larger municipalities which have not yet made adequate provision for the reclaiming of waste?

Mr. Burgin: I have interpreted the hon. Member's inquiry as relating to county and municipal boroughs in Great Britain with over 100,000 inhabitants, other than London. According to the information at my disposal I should judge that most needs to be done in the following boroughs:

Coventry.
South Shields.


Gateshead.
Stockport.


Heston and Isleworth.
Sunderland.



Swansea.


Huddersfield.
Walsall.


Liverpool.
West Ham.


Reading.
Willesden.


St. Helens.
Wolverhampton.


Salford.
York.

Some of the authorities included in the list, as well as other authorities not included, are already taking steps to improve their salvage returns, and I trust that the authorities themselves, backed by local public opinion in the areas, will show a steadily increasing sense of the

essential importance of salvage, especially in time of war, and will rapidly improve their arrangements.

Mr. Benson: May I ask the Minister to pillory those local authorities which are recalcitrant, through the Ministry of Information or the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Sir Joseph Lamb: Are there any facilities for local authorities to obtain the necessary machinery for drying the food which is salvaged in order to be able to distribute it over a wider area?

Mr. Burgin: That matter has been dealt with quite recently in Question and Answer. I understand that the Minister of Health will in proper cases sanction a loan for the purchase of the machinery in question.

Mr. Leach: Is the Minister aware that most of the authorities which are backward in this matter are Tory in administration?

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Ealing has the most' modern and up-to-date plant for reclaiming waste and that they have set an example which should be copied by the rest of the country, and would my right hon. Friend care to visit it some time?

CONTRACTS (INTERMEDIARIES).

Mr. Herbert Morrison (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Supply whether, having regard to the wide public interest in the matter and the fact that the House is about to rise for the Easter Recess, he will make a statement as to points left outstanding in relation to the question of commission on contracts, notably in regard to the visiting card of the Minister of Supply used by Captain V. R. Ullman, M.C.?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. As to the general question raised by the right hon. Gentleman it is perhaps sufficient for me to say that the Order-in-Council under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act which I outlined to the House on the 15th March has now been made and copies will be available to-morrow. I should desire to take the opportunity of again making it quite clear to the House that I can find no proof of the existence of a commission system recently developed in securing orders from the Ministry of Supply or


placing orders by the Ministry of Supply. The policy of the Ministry is not to employ intermediaries. As regards the matters referred to by the right hon. Gentleman as left outstanding, I yesterday sent him full letter as to the case of Captain Ullman to which he particularly refers. The substance of this letter is that it has now been definitely established that the only thing given by me to Captain Ullman which could be said to be in the nature of a visiting card was a note admitting him to a Ministry of Supply Exhibition at Savoy Hill, written on a Ministry of Supply envelope which I hold in my hand, dated 9th December, 1939, and reading as follows:

"MAJOR SCRUTTON,

Savoy Hill House.

Please allow Captain Ullman of the Franco-British Electrical Company to see the exhibition of goods for manufacture.

LESLIE BURGIN.

9th December, 1939."

This note has been on the records at Savoy Hill ever since and cannot therefore have been used in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman on 15th March. Captain Ullman has been seen and categorically denies that he has ever had or made use of any card of mine in the way suggested. He is the contracts manager of a firm holding considerable direct contracts from the Ministry of Supply. I am accordingly, as at present advised, quite unable to understand how he has come to be associated with the allegations as to irregular commissions in respect of Ministry of Supply business. I can find no evidence that he has been claiming to act as an intermediary. I have therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman to furnish me with full particulars of the information which has reached him and especially particulars of the people who claim to have actually seen the visiting card.

Mr. Morrison: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, although he has said that agents are not employed by the Government—which was never alleged—it is not the case that the Department, by dealing with these people, have recognised commission agents acting on their own volition on behalf of firms? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman state the salary that Captain Ullman receives from this firm? With regard to the statements which the right hon. Gentleman has made in his letter to

me, I have not yet received the letter and am not in a position to deal with it.

Mr. Burgin: I have stated that the Ministry of Supply do not employ intermediaries. I emphatically deny that the Ministry recognise intermediaries at all, but the House will understand that you cannot interview a limited company. You interview somebody who calls on their behalf. In the case of Captain Ullman, he comes as the accredited contract manager of a limited company with which the Ministry of Supply are doing current business. He comes as of right in connection with contracts which are being performed, as far as I know, completely to the satisfaction of the Ministry. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman the relations between Captain Ullman and his employers. I have no reason to know them, but in view of the statements which the right hon. Gentleman made, I caused a senior official of the Ministry of Supply to interview Captain Ullman on Saturday last, the day following the Debate, and the information I have given to the House is gained from that interview. I am sorry if the letter addressed to the right hon. Gentleman by me and handed in in the precincts of the House yesterday has not yet reached him, but there will be an opportunity of dealing with matters in that letter otherwise than by a private notice Question.

Mr. McGovern: Is it not the case that there are thousands of agents of business firms in London who work simply on commission for those firms in every type of industry?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (DIVISIONS, PROCEDURE).

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider proposing a change in procedure which will enable the House to register its votes without the waste of time inevitable under the present procedure?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The question of improving the method of taking Divisions has been considered, but no solution has been put forward which on examination has proved satisfactory.

Mr. Edwards: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that recently visitors


to the public galleries witnessed a procedure in this House in which for more than an hour and a-half more than 100 Members paraded through the Lobbies in seven successive Divisions, when the matter could have been disposed of by a single vote?

Mr. McGovern: Is there any need for hon. Members to vote at all, seeing that the whipping system is in operation? Why should not the Whips be given the right to cast the vote?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF DEFENCE.

47. Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement defining the duties of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and whether there has been any change in the function of this office since the outbreak of hostilities?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 1st February to a similar Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft).

Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when an important officer of the Government was asked recently about referring an important matter to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence he said that he did not have time to do that in these times? What is the function of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence if it is not to co-ordinate the increase of production?

Sir J. Simon: I hope the hon. Member will look at the answer to which I have referred him. It is a very full answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

BEEF (PRICES).

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that under the existing grading and scale of payment there is a difference often of from 12s. to 15s. a cwt. between cow heifers and heifers which have got eight incisor teeth; and whether, in view of the fact that the latter are often as good as prime beef, he will consider a revision of the scale?

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Minister of Food, in view of the Government's undertaking to home agriculture that a guaranteed market at remunerative prices will be provided for all fat stock offered by farmers, how the present prices offered for high-grade fat cows are arrived at; and whether first-grade cow beef is sold in the butchers' shops at similar prices to the corresponding cuts of steer and heifer beef?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): After discussion with the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland a special grade for young cows likely to yield carcases of first quality beef was introduced this week. The price which is now being paid for this grade of cow has been increased by 8s. 6d. per cwt. Beef from the special grade of young cows will be sold in butchers' shops at the same prices as that from steers and heifers.

Mr. Prices: Is the scale of payment in regard to calves being reconsidered?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question on the Paper.

Mr. T. Williams: What is the new percentage increase for this kind of animal over pre-war prices?

Mr. J. Morgan: Are second-rate cows also put into the butchers' shops at the same prices on the cut basis, or is there an intermediate price available in the shops?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The regulations apply to special-grade young cows likely to yield carcases of first-quality beef.

Mr. Morgan: What retail prices do the old cows make in the shops?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That does not strictly arise from the Question. If the hon. Member will examine the schedule, which is very voluminous—I will show it to him afterwards—he will find answers to his questions.

Major Braithwaite: Are these prices the result of consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, Sir.

SLAUGHTER-HOUSES.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the approach of warmer weather, he is considering an increase in the number of slaughterhouses and meat distributing centres throughout the country; and will he indicate the number of new centres in mind and the areas these will serve?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The question of the adequacy of the number of slaughterhouses and meat distribution depots, both at present and when the warmer weather arrives, is constantly under review in order that adjustments may be made as and when required. Apart from this, independent local tribunals are being set up to consider cases where local interests are not satisfied that adequate slaughtering facilities have been provided.

Mr. Morgan: May we take it that there is to be an increase in the number of slaughter-houses in view of the approach of the summer, and in view of transport problems?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member may take it that there will be tribunals set up very shortly to decide that question in the light of local knowledge.

Sir J. Lamb: To what extent will they be local tribunals?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Probably they will be on a county basis.

MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CONTROL (SOUTH WESTERN AREA AND WALES).

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Food (1) what are the names of the senior area officers and technical assistants to the South-western area of the meat and livestock control;
(2) what are the names of the deputy divisional food officers and their assistants in Wales?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the replies consist of tabular statements, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement in reply to Question 53:

Area Meat and Livestock Officer—Major Cyril Porter, O.B.E.

Deputy Area Meat and Livestock Officer—E. C. Ingram.

Area Livestock Supervisor—D. C. Watts.

Area Livestock Inspector—H. Warner.

Area Slaughterhouse Agent—A. F. Pugh.

Area Wholesale Meat Distribution Officer—Major S. L. Hunkin.

Area Meat Agent (Retail Distribution Officer)—F. Duckham.

Area Forwarding Officer—J. W. James.

Area Meat Agent (for South-West England)—H. J. Davy.

Deputy Area Slaughterhouse Agent (for South-West England)—E. H. Bott.

Technical Assistants—D. Rowlands, W. A. Sharpe, W. H. Macdonnell, E. G. Evans.

Following is the statement in reply to Question 54:

Deputy Divisional Food Officers—John Williams, E. Hill-Snook.

Assistants to above (excluding two civil servants)—H. Parry, W. J. Mathews, W. Williams, J. H. Jenkins, O. A. Lake, D. P. Jones, S. B. Jones, Major H. Hallam, J. Orchard, C. S. Hallinan.

Assistants to above—J. W. Mildon, Miss L. Beynon.

PIGS (EAR-MARKING).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to the cruelty caused by the present method of marking pigs by puncturing their ears; and will he take steps to use some more humane plan?

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Food whether he will take steps to put an end to the practice of piercing the ears of pigs for identification or other purposes, as now in vogue at Ludlow and other cattle markets?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the cruelty practised on pigs by the Order under the grading scheme which permits the boring of the animal's ears by an instrument resembling a pair of large nutcrackers containing 15 to 20 steel pins; who was responsible for authorising this cruel procedure; and will he take immediate steps to prohibit it?

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the method used to grade pigs in certain markets involves the piercing of both ears of the pig by an instrument containing a number of steel pins; and whether, in view of


the cruelty of this practice, he will give instructions that this method is not to be used?

Mr. Riley: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the strong objection to the present method of punching holes in the ears of live pigs in connection with the Government's grading scheme, he will instruct his experts to consider some alternative method of marking, or some modification of the present method?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer hon. Members to the answer given to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 14th March, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will my hon. Friend expedite the use of some less cruel method?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the outcry has been considerably exaggerated.

Mr. Lipson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the previous answer to which he has referred caused widespread indignation, and that these Questions have been put down in order to persuade the Minister to change his attitude? Will not my hon. Friend consider some more humane method?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the indignation is really based on insufficient knowledge of the situation and a failure to realise that as long as pigs are bought on a carcase weight basis, some marking which will stay all through the processing is essential.

Sir William Davison: Does my hon. Friend realise the scandalous conditions at these markets, where the animals rush about bleeding?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Not even my hon. Friend could stop pigs squealing.

Mr. De la Bère: Why not have the pigs bought on a live-weight basis?

PIG AND POULTRY FOOD (CONSIGNMENT, LONDON TO DEVON).

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that truck-loads of whole rolls and loaves of bread are being sent from Nine Elms Station, Southern Railway, to Devonshire for pig and poultry food; and whether he can state the origin of such bread?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I am having further inquiries made.

Mr. Lambert: Is my hon. Friend aware that good bread is being sent from a station in London to Devonshire for pig and poultry food, and is not this a scandal?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will make inquiries into the matter. If the facts are as my hon. Friend says, certainly it is a scandal.

ANIMAL FEEDING-STUFFS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, with a view to expediting the problems and difficulties in connection with the distribution of feeding-stuffs throughout the country and separating the control which still continues to be exercised by the leaders of the milling combines, the Government will consider acquiring immediately these undertakings?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that the adoption of my hon. Friend's suggestion would facilitate the distribution of feeding-stuffs.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend aware that the matter cannot be lightly dismissed, that indeed it cannot be dismissed at all; and is he further aware that one central and vital fact remains, that you will never get the feeding-stuffs problem solved as long as the milling combines remain under their present control?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would point out to my hon. Friend that they are not under their own control, but that under the Order they are under the control of the Ministry of Food. Any change such as my hon. Friend suggests would substitute for management by people who know the job, management by officials who do not.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the Ministry of Food really control these people? It is an absolute scandal.

RATIONING (RAILWAYMEN).

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the discontent amongst railwaymen employed on double home shifts of duty owing to the


difficulties experienced in regard to food rationing; and whether he has now decided what steps to take to remove the grievance?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am aware that complaints have been made, and the matter is still under consideration. I hope that a decision will be arrived at shortly.

Mr. Dobbie: Will the hon. Gentleman consider issuing extra ration books to those men, because of their inability to obtain meals at restaurants or hotels?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the hon. Member had better await the result of our consideration.

BACON.

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that in some cases where retailers have surplus supplies of bacon on hand which have not been purchased by the customers registered with them, such retailers are being informed by their local food offices that they must take delivery of further bacon allotted to them, and that if there is no sale for it they must throw it away; and in view of this most undesirable waste of foodstuffs, will he consider increasing the bacon ration, or taking such other steps as may be necessary to dispose of available bacon supplies in the public interest?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not aware of any cases such as those referred to by my hon. Friend. I shall be glad if he will furnish me with further particulars so that I may make inquiries. If there is any danger of stocks held by a retailer becoming unsuitable for human consumption, application may be made to the local food control committees for permission to sell such stocks off the ration in order to ensure the disposal of supplies without undesirable waste. Retailers, however, who find that their weekly supply of bacon exceeds the demands of their registered customers are expected to reduce their weekly indents on their wholesalers.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that my information was given to me direct by the retailers and may be taken as strictly accurate, and that it does not apply to one locality only, but to many parts of the country; and will he give the matter his serious consideration with a view to taking such steps as may

be necessary to prevent a continuance of such reckless and wanton waste?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If my hon. Friend will give me details, I will make an investigation.

Mr. J. Morgan: Are we to understand from the answer that the bacon will be allocated to the shops on the basis of the demands of their registered customers, and not on the basis of the ration amounts for their registered customers?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It will be on the basis of their sales.

Mr. Morgan: Does not this mean that there will be a reduction in the amounts and that they may have insufficient if, for some reason or other, purchasing power goes up?

BREAD (FREE SAMPLES).

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been drawn to complaints received from Ealing and other areas, particularly in the Western suburbs of London, with regard to the activities of a company primarily engaged in the wholesale bakery business, who have intensively canvassed these areas, already adequately served by established firms holding licences for food distribution, and by such canvassing and wide distribution of sample loaves have caused considerable dislocation of organisation and waste of vital foodstuffs which are the subject of Government subsidy; and whether he will take steps to put an end to practices of this kind?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am informed that in normal times bakers and bakers' roundsmen seeking business not uncommonly distribute free samples of bread. Owing to the possibility of waste, I have already secured an undertaking from the London Bakers Advisory Committee that the distribution of, free samples will not be condoned during the war, and I have reason to believe that the committee's wishes have been generally accepted in the trade. If my hon. Friend can inform me of departures from this undertaking, I shall be glad to investigate them.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the method of working the business has been to occupy empty garages, to bring the bread in bulk from


Hayes, and then to distribute it locally by means of barrows? Does he not regard that as a very unfair form of competition against the local bakery trade, and will he take immediate steps to confirm the action of the local food control committee in withdrawing the licence to trade in this case?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that if my hon. Friend will read the answer, he will see that it gives a full reply.

FISH-FRYERS (POTATO SUPPLIES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that fish-fryers have been accustomed to purchase potatoes on wholesale terms in the past; why it is now proposed to penalise them by insisting on their buying on retail terms; and whether, in view of the difficult situation created by this and other difficulties for fish-fryers in Wolverhampton and elsewhere, he will consider the possibility of continuing the usual peace-time practice?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The prices which may be charged for potatoes sold to fish-fryers are the maximum wholesale prices. It is not intended to alter the peace-time practice and a notice conveying this information to the trade was issued to the Press on 8th March.

Mr. Mander: As the hon. Gentleman's answer entirely contradicts the answer given to me on 7th March, am I to understand that the present answer cancels the previous one?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept the hon. Member's description. That answer stands. Fish-friers will buy their potatoes at maximum wholesale prices.

MILK.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Food whether he can give an assurance that the increase in the guaranteed price of milk announced to be paid to producers will not mean an increase in the price of liquid milk to consumers?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Part of the cost of the increase in returns guaranteed to producers will be obtained from increasing the price of milk used for manufacturing purposes. It will also be necessary to increase the retail price of liquid

milk at some date in the summer, but until a closer estimate can be made of the revenue likely to be obtained from the increased prices of manufacturing milk and of the total liabilities to be met, it is impossible to indicate the date on which an increase in liquid milk prices will be necessary.

Mr. Lipson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the present price of milk makes it impossible for many people who need it to buy as much as they want to have? Will he reconsider the matter before taking any action that will reduce consumption?

Mr. J. Morgan: May we take it that the Chancellor's undertaking to keep down milk prices has been withdrawn?

Mr. T. Williams: May I ask whether the contemplated increase is in the neighbourhood of 4d. per gallon, and, if so, is it not the case that such an increase will obviously prevent tens of thousands of families from purchasing their normal requirements of milk, and that this will ultimately re-act to the detriment of the farmers, unless the Treasury step in and do their job?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I appreciate the effect of prices upon consumption, but I think the hon. Member had better wait until my right hon. Friend makes a full statement on the increase next month.

Mr. Stokes: Is there any reason why the whole increase should not be put on the price of manufactured milk?

BUTTER.

Mr. Hall-Caine: asked the Minister of Food what arrangements have been made for the disposal of farm-made dairy butter usually made in small quantities and sold locally to private customers or at the local market; and at what price per pound may this butter be sold?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Farmers who make their own butter may dispose of their output either to registered customers against ration coupons, or to retailers or wholesalers who have to make a corresponding reduction in their applications for National Butter. All sales must be within the terms of the Maximum Prices Order. The maximum retail price under this Order is 1s. 7d. per lb.

Mr. Hall-Caine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the fact that farmers are unaware of the regulation thousands of pounds of butter each week are being buried in the ground?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not accept that, and I hope the hon. Member will drive home in his own part of the country the answer I have given to this question.

Mr. J. Morgan: Is the farmer entitled to give butter away?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A person cannot obtain more of a rationed commodity than he is entitled to receive by his coupon.

Mr. Hall-Caine: Is the farmer entitled to eat his own butter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Minister of Food whether he will give consideration to the possibility of reducing the present price of butter, as many of the poorer section of the community are quite un able to afford to purchase it at the present high price?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can see no immediate prospect of reducing the present maximum price of butter without consequent loss to the Exchequer.

Mr. Green: Is the hon. Member aware that retail sales of butter have gone down considerably in poorer districts since this price was fixed, due to the inability of so many to afford the present price?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member will appreciate that, unlike some subsidised commodities, there is an adequate alternative available.

Mr. Watkins: How much of the 1s. 7d. per lb. charged goes to the profit of the Government?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is no profit to the Government.

Mr. Green: asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to a case before the Blandford, Dorset, Bench, in which Major Castleman was fined £35 for instructing his dairy man to give away butter rather than that it should be wasted; whether he is aware that during the hearing of this case, evidence was given that a food officer in an adjoining county advised a woman retailer to bury her surplus butter in the garden, rather than it should be given

away to those needing it but unable to purchase same; and what action he proposes to take to prevent butter being wasted instead of being used?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers, but the full facts are not yet before me, and I am making inquiries.

Mr. Green: Is the hon. Member aware of the deep revulsion of feeling which this sort of thing is causing, and will he advise the House and traders, if they find themselves with a surplus after having their ration of butter, what they are to do with it other than to destroy it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I advise the hon. Member to wait until we make our full inquiries before he makes up his mind on this question.

FOOD MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, GREENOCK (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the number of men unemployed in the food-manufacturing industries in Greenock rose from 69, on 15th January, 1940, to 139 on 12th February, 1940, bringing the percentage employed up to 14·2; what were the causes of this increase; and what proposals he has to bring these men into productive employment?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am aware that a reduction in employment in the Greenock area has resulted from the curtailment of raw sugar supplies. From the replies given to his earlier Questions on 31st January and 22nd February, the hon. and learned Member will be aware that it is not in my power to supply the raw sugar required for the full-time working of the Greenock refineries.

FRESH-WATER FISH.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Minister of Food whether he is prepared to issue an Order for the importation of fresh water fish during the close season in accordance with the recommendations of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: An Order is being issued permitting the sale between 14th March and 16th June, 1940, which is the close season, of fresh-water fish other than salmon or trout imported from abroad or caught in Scotland or Northern Ireland, provided that such fish has been legally


caught in its country of origin and is accompanied by a certificate of origin.

Mr. Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries informed me a month ago that he had agreed on this course and that it has taken the Department of Food over a month to implement the promise made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman?

EGGS.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the serious consequences to producers arising from the slump in local market prices for eggs as, for instance, Swindon since the beginning of March; and what steps he is taking to safeguard the interests of producers during the spring glut period?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The prices during the last three weeks of first quality English eggs at Swindon market represent increases of 133 per cent., 38 per cent. and 70 per cent. on the average prices for the corresponding weeks of the three previous years. The corresponding percentage increases for the country as a whole were 86 per cent., 70 per cent. and 75 per cent. The present level of prices cannot, therefore, be regarded as unsatisfactory to producers. In reply to the last part of the Question my right hon. Friend has arranged for a publicity campaign to encourage housewives to purchase eggs in the spring for domestic storage, and in order to give confidence to traders who desire to undertake the cold storage of English eggs he has announced that in the event of the introduction of price control of home-produced cold-stored or pickled eggs next autumn or winter, due consideration will be given in fixing the maximum prices to the average spring price of home-produced eggs and to the costs of storage.

Sir P. Hurd: Would my hon. Friend say exactly what is the method of publicity given to this subject?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: By extensive statements in the Press, and I hope the hon. Member will help us by speeches and otherwise in the country.

PIGS (GRADING).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food since, under the present Government scheme the small pig owner is not paid by the Government until the pig is

actually killed and since the small pig owner has to pay cash for everything, he will consider reverting to the old control system of estimating the weight of the live pig on the day of the sale and paying cash before the farmer leaves the market?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) on 11th March.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend aware that farmers are being compelled to finance the Government? Is he aware that the pigs delivered to the Government on 5th February have not yet been paid for, and can he not really do something about this? Fanners cannot go on delivering pigs and not being paid for them for weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (FOOD PRODUCTION, ALLOTMENTS).

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Food under what conditions allotment-holders growing food in war-time will be able to sell their surplus produce, as and when available?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Captain McEwen): I have been asked to reply. The question to which the hon. Member refers is now engaging the attention of the Advisory Council set up to deal with matters relating to the development of the allotment movement, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture referred in the answer given to a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) on 22nd February.

Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that those concerned will take into account the fact that the produce of an allotment amounts, to only about £7 a year, and will he remove the embargo against the unemployed selling a little of what they produce on their allotments?

Captain McEwen: All relevant facts will be taken into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTED OIL FUEL.

HOME-PRODUCED SUBSTITUTES.

Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can


make a statement on the steps he is taking to secure the most effective use of home-produced substitutes for imported fuels.

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The effective use of home-produced substitutes for imported oil is a subject of such wide scope and importance that it calls for the mobilisation of the best technical and business experience available. I accordingly appointed Sir Harold Hartley as honorary adviser on the development of home-produced fuels and asked a number of leading representatives of industry, finance and technical science, under the chairmanship of Sir William Bragg, the President of the Royal Society, to make a rapid survey of the subject in the light of war conditions. Within a month this authoritative body completed its survey, and on its recommendations the following six specific problems are being investigated simultaneously:
(1) The production of oil from coal by synthetic processes, under the chairmanship of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. Jowitt);
(2) The products of low temperature carbonisation, under Lord Henley;
(3) The liquid products of high temperature carbonisation, under Mr. Davidson Pratt;
(4) Alternative fuels for internal combustion engines, under Major the Viscount Ridley;
(5) The development of the use of colloidal fuel, under Mr. Irvine Geddes; and
(6) The more efficient use of fuel generally, under Sir Clement Hindley.
Interim reports were asked for wherever possible in order that immediate action might be taken. I have in fact received a report on the recovery of benzole. This report indicates that already additional crude benzole is being recovered at the estimated rate of 15,000,000 gallons a year, and that an extension of voluntary effort should secure a further 12,000,000 gallons a year. I should like to express my appreciation of what has already been done by voluntary effort and to appeal to those who are not doing so, to recover all possible benzole. The maximum production of benzole of all qualities is urgently required in the national interest.
A most valuable survey has also been completed which shows how our production of tar creosote and pitch can take the place of imported fuel oil and bitumen to the extent of some 300,000 tons in the current year. Arrangements have already been made for making use of these products in this way.
The House will appreciate that a number of highly qualified men are giving a great deal of time and thought to this work, and I wish to express, on behalf of the Government, gratitude for their valuable assistance. I am circulating a fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Attlee: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that on any recommendations made very vigorous and immediate action will be taken?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance, and I think it is borne out by the fact that having received some interim reports, action has at once been taken which will result in obtaining in the current year some 32,000,000 gallons of substitutes for imported oil.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that he has said nothing about the production of synthetic petrol and that there are many existing installations which are not in operation that could be put into immediate operation if the Hon. Gentleman cared to take the necessary action? Is he also aware that he has spoken only of a number of laboratory experiments similar to numerous experiments that have been conducted over a long period of years, that the time for laboratory experiment is past, and that immediate action is necessary if we are to become less dependent on imported fuel?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The synthetic processes he has mentioned are under examination with a view to action by the committee under his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Sir W. Jowitt).

Mr. Higgs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the statement he has made will be received with considerable satisfaction by the industries concerned and that business men will be gratified to know that the Minister is making use of external technical experts?

Mr. A. Edwards: In view of the fact that there is a general impression that this committee is favourably disposed to the Fischer-Tropsch process, will the hon. Gentleman give special attention to what is called the synthetic oil process, which has been developed in this country, which has all the advantages of the Fischer process, which is almost identical with it, and which, if it were developed here, would not have to pay fees abroad?

Mr. Lloyd: This process is also under examination by that committee.

Mr. Batey: Why did the Minister appoint these committees to deal with low temperature carbonisation and hydrogenation when there are already plants at work in this country? Have we not sufficient knowledge and experience of these processes without wasting time in making further inquiries?

Mr. Lloyd: The question is whether or not they ought to be extended.

Mr. Mathers: Is the Minister taking into account the value of the contribution that can be made by the Scottish shale oil industry?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Should there be any doubt in the mind of the Minister and that of the Government whether the experiments which are already in operation should be extended in what is necessarily a war emergency? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that in the circumstances we had better have a full Debate on this subject?

Mr. Messer: Do the inquiries include the production of methane gas, and has the hon. Gentleman seen the report of Middlesex County Council, who say that they can produce it at 11d. per gallon less than petrol?

Mr. Lloyd: That is included in the Inquiry into alternative fuels for internal combustion engines.

Captain Alan Graham: Seeing that most of these processes came before the Department of Industrial and Scientific Research at least 15 years ago, and also came up for consideration during Lord Baldwin's first Government, 1924–29, can my hon. Friend explain why, in view of the urgent necessity which now exists, speedier action has not been taken?

Mr. Lloyd: It must be understood that the value of these various processes for practical application on a large scale varies considerably and that one of the things which is being considered at the present time by practical men and technical experts, is the best way of developing processes that are really useful.

Mr. Attlee: May I give notice, in view of the vital importance of this matter to the country and the need for action being taken, that we shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Batey: May I ask—

Mr. Speaker: Notice has been given that the subject is to be raised in Debate.

Mr. Batey: Yes, but this is very important.

Following is the fuller statement:

In November, 1939, Sir Harold Hartley, C.B.E., M.C., F.R.S., was appointed Honorary Adviser to the Mines Department on the development of home-produced fuels, and, early in December an authoritative body, consisting of leading representatives of industry, finance and technical science, was set up
to consider and review in the light of war conditions the scope for the substitution of imported fuels by home-produced fuels and to recommend what detailed inquiries should be undertaken with a view to securing the best use of home-produced fuels in war-time.

The Chairman of this Committee was Sir William Bragg, O.M., K.B.E., P.R.S., and the members were as follows:

Lord Cadman, G.C.M.G., D.Sc, LL.D.; Sir Harold Hartley, C.B.E., M.C., F.R.S.; Lord Hyndley, G.B.E.; Sir David Milne-Watson, Bt, LL.D.; Sir Edward Peacock, G.C.V.O., D.C.L.; Lord Perry, K.B.E., LL.D.; Sir Thomas Royden, Bt., C.H.; Mr. George Thomson.

In a unanimous report, submitted on 8th January, 1940, this Committee made a rapid survey of the fields into which detailed inquiry might usefully be directed, and recommended six specific problems for prompt investigation, which could best be secured by the appointment of six separate committees to deal with the problems concurrently. In pursuance of this recommendation the inquiries were at once set on foot, and the committees have been at work for some time past on the questions remitted to them. The terms


of reference and constitution of the committees are set out below.

Oral Answers to Questions — I.—COMMITTEE ON SYNTHETIC PROCESSES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF OIL FROM COAL.

Terms of Reference.—To consider and examine the Fischer-Tropsch and similar synthetic processes for the production of oil and to report on their economic possibilities and the advantages of establishing such processes in this country in wartime.

Constitution.

Chairman.

The Rt. Hon. Sir William Jowitt, K.C., M.P.

Members.

Mr. James Bowman.

Professor C. N. Hinshelwood, F.R.S.

Sir Walter Benton Jones, Bt.

Sir William Larke, K.B.E.

Sir Robert Robertson, K.B.E., F.R.S.

Mr. George Thomson.

Assessors.

Mr. J. G. King, Ph.D.

Mr. W. A MacFarlane, Ph.D.

Oral Answers to Questions — II.—COMMITTEE ON LOW TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.

Terms of Reference.—To consider and report on (a) the production of liquid fuels and other products by low-temperature carbonisation of coal, and the desirability or otherwise of increasing the amount of coal carbonised in this way in war-time, bearing in mind the possible demand for suitable low temperature coke in producer gas equipment,

Constitution.

Chairman.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Henley.

Members.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald, M.P.

Professor W. H. Mills, Sc.D., F.R.S.

Mr. W. E. Mortimer.

Mr. F. B. Richards.

Mr. T. E. B. Young.

Assessor.

Dr. F. S. Sinnatt, C.B., M.B.E., D.Sc, F.R.S.

Oral Answers to Questions — III.—COMMITTEE ON THE LIQUID PRODUCTS OBTAINED BY HIGH TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.

Terms of Reference.—To consider and examine the possibility of increasing the amount of liquid products (tar, creosote, benzole, toluole, etc.) obtained by high-temperature carbonisation in gas-works and coke-ovens and the most advantageous means of utilising such products in war-time.

Constitution:

Chairman.

Mr. J. Davidson Pratt, O.B.E.

Members.

Mr. W. Gordon Adam.

Mr. S. Billborough.

Mr. G. A. Hebden.

Mr. A. H. Middleton.

Mr. Stanley Robinson.

Mr. A. W. Smith.

Mr. T. A. Smith.

Assessors.

Mr. J. F. Ronca, O.B.E.

Mr. J. G. King, Ph.D.

This committee has submitted an interim report on the recovery of benzole, and has also made a survey into the production and use of tar, creosote and pitch.

Oral Answers to Questions — IV.—COMMITTEE ON ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES.

Terms of Reference.—To consider and report on the best means of encouraging and developing the use of home-produced fuels in internal combustion engines under war conditions.

Constitution:

Chairman.

Major the Viscount Ridley, C.B.E.

Members.

Mr. A. A. M. Durrant, M.I.A.E., M.I.Mech.E.

Mr. J. S. Nicholl, C.B.E.

Mr. J. Arthur Reavell, M.I.Mech.E., M.I.Chem.E.

Mr. H. R. Ricardo. F.R.S.

Assessors

Mr. C.G.Williams, M.Sc., M.I.A.E., A.M.I.Mech.E.

Mr. O. W. J. Watson, M.I.Mech.E., M.I.A.E.

Mr. T. F. Hurley, B.Sc, A.M.Inst.C.E.

This committee is following up, on a much wider field, the work already done by the committee on the emergency conversion of motor vehicles to producer gas, whose report was published 6th February, and is also dealing with the use of steam and electricity as alternative means of propulsion for road transport.

Oral Answers to Questions — V.—COMMITTEE ON "COLLOIDAL" FUEL.

Terms of Reference.—To consider and report on the possibilities of developing the use of coal-oil mixtures for steam raising on land or sea and in furnaces.

Constitution.

Chairman.

Mr. Irvine Geddes.

Members.

Mr. S. B. Freeman, C.B.E., M.Inst.C.E.

Sir Leonard Pearce, C.B.E., D.Sc, M.Inst.C.E., M.I.Mech.E.

Professor E. K. Rideal, M.B.E., F.R.S., F.I.C.

Mr. W. J. Drummond, M.Inst.C.E., M.I.Mech.E.

Mr. H. Hicken.

Assessors.

Mr. A. T. Barber, B.Sc., M.I.Mech.E.

Mr. R. A. Acton Taylor, M.Sc., A.R.C.S.

This Committee is dealing with the practical application of the successful experiments carried out originally by the Cunard Steamship Company and later by the Mines Department, the Fuel Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and Messrs. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries, Limited, into the use of coal-oil mixtures as fuel.

Oral Answers to Questions — VI.—COMMITTEE ON THE EFFICIENT USE OF FUEL IN WAR-TIME.

Terms of Reference.—To consider and report on the possibilities of effecting economies in the use of fuel, with particular reference to any special problems arising from war conditions.

Constitution.

Chairman.

Sir Clement Hindley, K.C.I.E., P.Inst.C.E.

Members.

Captain J. G. Bennett.

Mr. E. S. Grumell, D.Sc.

Mr. E. G. Hicks, M.P.

Professor C. H. Lander, C.B.E., D.Sc, M.Inst.C.E.

Mr. C. A. Masterman.

Mr. R. J. Sarjant, M.Sc.

Mr. G. B. Sharples, O.B.E., M.Sc, M.Inst.C.E.

Mr. Johnston Wright, M.Inst.C.E., P.I.E.E.

Assessors.

Mr. R. Fitzmaurice.

Mr. D. T. Davies, Ph.D.

Oral Answers to Questions — ISLAND OF SYLT.

BRITISH BOMBING RAIDS.

Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make about the attacks carried out last night by the Royal Air Force on the island of Sylt?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. Squadrons of the Royal Air Force last night delivered a continuous series of attacks for a period of six hours on the base at Hoernum in the island of Sylt from which German seaplanes have been engaged in mine-laying and in attacks on our shipping. These operations were carried out in answer to the raid by German aircraft on land bases in the Orkney Islands last Saturday. A strong force, involving more than double the number of German aircraft engaged on Saturday, took part in the operation. The weather conditions over the target were clear moonlight during the early part of the raid, gradually clouding over towards morning.
The aircraft encountered intense antiaircraft fire from gun positions on Sylt and on adjacent islands, but this did not prevent them reaching and dropping a large number of bombs on their target. Such fighter aircraft as were encountered sheered off on meeting our fire. With one exception all our aircraft taking part in the attack returned safely to their bases. Both high and low altitude attacks were


carried out, and many tons of high explosive and incendiary bombs were dropped. The reports already received from the pilots show how extensive is the damage that has been done. Direct hits were obtained on the hangars which were set on fire. The oil storage tanks were also seen to be on fire, and many hits were obtained on the jetty, light railway and other parts of the base.
A further reconnaissance of the island of Sylt was carried out this morning. Although the aircraft were heavily engaged they were able to make observations of the island which confirm the success of the operation. All these aircraft have returned to their bases. I may add that the Royal Air Force has been very gratified and encouraged to have had this opportunity. This action has once more demonstrated the fighting spirit and the skill of our captains and crews and their willingness and readiness to meet the call.

Mr. Simmonds: May I ask my right hon. Friend will he bear in mind that the country sincerely hopes that this will be no isolated instance and that there will be given to the Royal Air Force wide liberty of action to distinguish itself in similar enterprises?

Mr. Maxton: Can the Minister say how many casualties there were?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I have no information.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Resolved,

"That this House do meet To-morrow at Eleven of the Clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the Clock; and that at Four of the Clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put."—[Sir J. Simon.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER).

Resolved,

"That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 2nd April." [Sir J. Simon.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir J. Simon.]

Orders of the Day — OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 32, at the end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Power of Northern Ireland Parliament to amend S. 14 (3) (a) of 2 & 3 Geo. 6. c. 84.)

Such of the provisions of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section fourteen of the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, as relate to the payment of additional amounts in respect of pensions shall, so far as those provisions extend to matters with respect to which the Parliament of Northern Ireland has power to make laws, be treated for the purposes of Section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as an enactment passed before the appointed day.

4.5 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment which gives the Parliament of Northern Ireland power to amend the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939. Otherwise, it would not have power to do so, that Act having been passed after the appointed day.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Provision for dealing with special cases.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 35, leave out Sub-sections (3) and (4).

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It will be remembered that Sub-section (3) of Clause 10 is one on which we had some debate during the Report stage and that I undertook to investigate the matter further and to direct my attention to meeting certain views which had been

expressed by many hon. Members in all parts of the House. As the House will also remember, Sub-section (3) of this Clause was inserted in the Bill for the purpose of providing convenient machinery for dealing with differences of opinion which might arise on the question whether it was in the best interests of an applicant that he should receive a supplementary pension, or that he should become an inmate of an institution. The cases contemplated were those in which an infirm old age pensioner without friends or relations and who clearly should be looked after in an institution was reluctant to enter one, or, more rarely, where a difference of opinion arose between the officers of the Board and the public assistance authority as to the proper treatment of a particular case.
The proposal in the Bill was criticised by hon. Members on the ground that the procedure contemplated might be operated harshly and to the detriment of the old age pensioners. I do not admit that there was any foundation for this apprehension, but I promised to review the question further before the Bill became law, and, having done so, I have come to the conclusion that the number of cases in which recourse would need to be had to the machinery of the Subsection is likely to be so small that I think the power in the Sub-section can safely be omitted from the Bill. Therefore, in order to avoid any possibility of hardship arising from the Sub-section, the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have decided that the simplest course would be to drop this Sub-section (3), and also Sub-section (4) which is consequential upon it.
It will be clearly understood, of course, that the omission of these provisions from the Bill is not to be regarded as relieving local authorities from their duty of providing institutional accommodation and care for persons whose interests would best be secured by admission to an institution. There are needs which can be met by the grant of money from the Assistance Board and which are their responsibility, but other needs remain the responsibility of the public assistance authorities. The most obvious of these is the need of medical treatment either in the home or in hospital, and the need for institutional care which in the case of old age pensioners may well arise from the natural infirmities of age


and the lack of relatives who are able and willing to provide the necessary care and attention for the pensioners.
We feel confident that public assistance authorities and their officers will treat this concession in the spirit in which it is made and will be ready to co-operate with the officers of the Board in dealing suitably with old age pensioners in cases where the needs of the pensioner could be provided for best by care of an institutional character, rather than by the payment of a supplementary pension. The Secretary of State for Scotland and I propose to send out a circular to local authorities calling attention to the fact that such cases will, no doubt, arise and pointing out the need for co-operation.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the House that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am glad that this matter has had a happy ending. Those who were present some 10 days or more ago will remember that we had, I will not say an acrimonious, but a protracted Debate in which some of my hon. Friends and I expressed ourselves strongly about Subsection (3). The decision which the right hon. Gentleman has now taken does him credit. It shows that he has taken into serious account the criticisms which were offered from these benches. I can understand the fact that, until that Debate, the right hon. Gentleman had not been fully conscious of the serious possible consequences of this Sub-section in the form in which it appeared in the Bill. It might have given rise to a good deal of misunderstanding and it might have affected two entirely different classes of people. First the old age pensioners themselves might have been deterred by it from putting in perfectly proper applications for supplementary pensions and, secondly, it might have acted adversely on the local authorities. Some of these, including my own local authority in the City of Edinburgh, were very much alarmed by the Sub-section as it stood. Therefore when we came to consider this matter we found it necessary to express our views very definitely and strongly.

I recall saying to the right hon. Gentleman, who had already promised to look into the matter, that I felt that there was

no way out except the withdrawal of the Sub-section. It is, as I say, a credit to the right hon. Gentleman that, on reconsideration, he has seen the necessity of that step. I appreciate, as I imagine all my hon. Friends appreciate, that there may be old people who would be better in an institution, but that is clearly a matter for the local authority to decide as the right hon. Gentleman has now recognised. I do not think the provisions of the Bill as they will stand now after the omission of this Sub-section will prevent that proper consideration, which the right hon. Gentleman has adumbrated, being given to those cases. Therefore, I support the Amendment which has been made in the other place and I hope that it will be acquiesced in by this House.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I rise to thank the right hon. Gentleman with all sincerity for having put to rest one of the unfortunately large number of controversial issues which arose during our earlier discussions of the Bill. I think his decision will give satisfaction to all who are interested in the matter. I am not sure that the most welcome feature of his announcement was not the statement of his intention to issue a circular to local authorities. It is urgent that their attention should be directed to this matter and that they should know exactly what the Minister expects them to do. In all these fields, where there is a division of authority or the possibility of a division of authority, the person most likely to suffer is the person in whose benefit these arrangements are being made.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Neil Maclean: I also would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for this concession. There might have been trouble had this Sub-section been put into operation in Scotland. He will remember that I drew attention to the fact that it violated the Scottish law on the question of placing anyone in a mental institution. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland who, I expect will be issuing a circular for Scotland, will be very careful with the wording of it and the instructions that are given to the officials of local authorities. He will know that the Sub-section which has been withdrawn would have meant a direct violation of the lunacy law of


Scotland, and if in that circular he gives instructions which even to a minor degree carry out the provisions which were in that Sub-section and are in violation of the law of Scotland, he will find himself running the risk of litigation on the part of the relatives of those who may be concerned.

4.16 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I can answer the hon. Gentleman's point in a word. I do not wish to argue the point he made about the law of Scotland, but in sending out the circular I shall certainly take very good care to see that the law of Scotland is not infringed. All we desire is to assist the local authorities in the proper discharge of their duties, and I shall be careful to watch the points which have been raised in this Debate.

Mr. E. J. Williams: While we are obliged to the Minister for what he has done, I should like to inquire whether there is to be any alteration in the financial arrangements between the Board and the local authorities in this regard. If a local authority carry out the recommendations in the circular, will they be reimbursed by the Board for any expense they incur?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. This Amendment does not alter in any way the main structure of the law, but deals merely with the procedure to be adopted in the case of persons who, it is thought, might be benefited by institutional care. The arrangement previously proposed would have provided for the final decision to be in the hands of an appeal tribunal. The alteration we are making leaves the responsibility for ordering institutional care with the local authority.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Special entry made.

CLAUSE 17.—(Superannuation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 40, leave out "persons" and insert:
pensionable officers or servants of local authorities.

4.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I beg to move, "That this House doth

agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the two that follow are identical in their effect with Amendments which stood in the names of the hon. Members for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) and Dundee (Mr. Foot). They concern the pension rights of officers of local authorities who take office under the Board. The first Amendment, which is practically a drafting Amendment, inserts the words "pensionable officers or servants of local authorities," because it is thought better that these words should be used throughout the Clause.

Mr. Lawson: I take it that later the hon. Lady will give us an explanation of this matter, because it is tied to quite a lot of other Amendments.

Miss Horsbrugh: Certainly.
Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 12, line 41, agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 2, after "servants," insert:
and the rules so made shall provide for treating any pensionable officer or servant of a local authority who becomes an officer or servant of the Board within one year after that date as a pensionable officer or servant of a local authority to which those rules apply, notwithstanding that the Treasury may not have directed that the rules should apply to that authority and that no application may have been made by the authority in that behalf.

4.21 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The other Amendments having been practically drafting Amendments, perhaps it would be as well to give an explanation on this Amendment. As the Clause stands, a pensionable local government employétransferred to the Board would not carry with him any pension rights in respect of his past local government service unless, on the request of the local authority, the Treasury directed that the rules made under the Superannuation Act, 1935, should apply to that authority. It has been suggested that it would be better if the pensionable local government employé had the right, apart from this request being made, to have his pension rights transferred. No doubt most local


authorities would make the request and the Treasury would readily comply, but it has been thought that under the special conditions of this transfer it would be better to give the employé a definite right. In another Clause later in the Bill the right to compensation is given, but in many cases the employé might not wish to apply for compensation and give up his work.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I think the House will agree that it is a very wise step to provide that if an officer is transferred, say, from the public assistance committee to the Board, he shall not lose his pension rights in respect of his past work. I was very surprised when looking into the matter to find that he might fall between two stools. I think those concerned will be glad to know that this matter has been dealt with in this simple and straightforward way.

4.23 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I should like to say on behalf of those with whom I have been acting how very grateful we are to the Minister for managing to get round the difficulty that was presented by the Rules of the House when this subject was brought forward at a previous stage of the proceedings. I am particularly interested in these movements that are made on behalf of local government officers, because I foresee, as an old local authority official myself, an enormous future before the local government service, and hope to see it by degrees being built up into a civil service complementary to and supplementary to the national Civil Service, on which we depend so much and of which we are rightly so proud. I hope those in local government service will be given all the rights which are necessary to make it a complete service, and this is a small but typical instance of what should be done with that object in view.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 26, line 26, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Modification of enactments relating to relief of the poor.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 31, leave out "otherwise than in money."

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House will recollect that before the Bill left the Committee stage the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern (Mr. Woodburn) and other hon. Members raised the point that Scottish local authorities would give relief in money rather than in kind, even in emergency cases. After that I had a discussion on the matter with representatives of Scottish local authorities, and came to the conclusion that it was wise in the case of Scotland to make this Amendment. It relates, of course, only to relief in sudden or urgent cases of necessity. The practice in that country has been to give relief in cash rather than in kind and the Amendment enables local authorities to do so in sudden or urgent cases. A consequential Amendment will enable the local authorities to be recouped.

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern): I have to express, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends, our appreciation of the action of the Minister in having this Amendment inserted in the House of Lords. On behalf of the local authorities, which speak through us, I should also like to express their appreciation of the fact that he has agreed to recoup them for this outlay.
Question put, and agreed to.

Special Entry made.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS WAR PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 14.—(Land drainage.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 31, after "land," insert "for agricultural purposes."

4.30 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is inserted to make it clear that drainage works to be carried out by catchment boards shall be confined to agricultural land. This was the intention of the Clause, but the Amendment makes it absolutely clear.
Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 10, line 16, agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 6, at the end, insert new Sub-section:
(6) Where, on the termination of the tenancy of a holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, in respect of which any sum has been paid or is payable to a Catchment Board by virtue of a scheme under this Section, the landlord proves to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under that Act that any works executed in pursuance of the scheme were rendered necessary by the neglect of the tenant to comply with any obligation relating to the maintenance or repair of a watercourse imposed on him by virtue of the contract of tenancy, the arbitrator shall award to the landlord compensation equal to so much of the net cost of the scheme as was attributable to the execution of those works:
Provided that, where any agreement is made between the landlord and the tenant of such a holding as aforesaid for the payment by the tenant of any contribution in respect of the sum paid or payable as aforesaid, that contribution shall be recoverable from the tenant in lieu of compensation under this Sub-section.
For the purpose of any arbitration under this Sub-section, a certificate by the Catchment Board that such part of the net cost of the scheme as may be specified in the certificate was attributable to the execution of works so specified shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is inserted to meet an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Pym) to deal with the question of the owner's liability to recoup a catchment board for the cost of works carried out by virtue of Sub-section (4, b) of the Clause. It was pointed out that there were many cases where work might be done by a catchment board in respect of ditches, the obligation to clean out which was a liability of the tenant under the tenancy agreement. It was suggested that it was unfair that the owner should bear the full liability of the

net cost. It is proposed that the State should pay 50 per cent. and the owner the other 50 per cent. The Government undertook to look into the position and see whether anything could be done to meet the point. The effect of the Amendment is that where a scheme has been carried out by a catchment board under the Clause and the cost has been incurred by the landowner in accordance with Sub-section (4, b) the landowner on the termination of the tenancy should be entitled to recover from the tenant the net cost of doing the work, that is to say, the balance after the Government's grant has been taken into account. The Amendment is framed on the lines of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, Section 10, which deals with the question of dilapidations. The proviso makes it clear that there is nothing to prevent landlord and tenant agreeing between themselves as to some different basis. That is the normal thing, and it will probably happen that agreement will be arrived at. The Amendment will bring about fairness between the landlord and the tenant.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: We have no objection to the Amendment. I think it is strictly in accordance with the promise made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. So long as the tenant has the right to go before an arbitrator to submit his case, should there be a dispute, we see no reason for dissenting from this House of Lords Amendment. The only other thing I would say is that the landlords are to be complimented on the watch dogs they have here and elsewhere.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 17.—(Control of Sluices.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 9, at the end, insert:
(a) no such notice shall require anything to be done before the expiration of forty-eight hours from the service of the notice unless it is stated in the notice that in the opinion of the board immediate action is necessary to meet an emergency;

4.34 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment was also discussed in Committee. Its object is to give definite notice to those concerned when an


occupier of land is ordered by a board to do something to a sluice in accordance with the Clause. The Amendment provides for 48 hours notice being given, unless it is stated in the notice that immediate action is necessary to meet an emergency. We do not want the whole thing held up if there is an emergency.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 13, after "dam," insert:
or any other person interested in the water controlled by the sluice.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This matter was also discussed in Committee, and it was suggested that protection should be given to the various types of users of water. It was pointed out that certain other interests might be affected, such as the water supply of public authorities or electricity companies. An assurance was given that the Clause would be amended to provide adequate protection for those who might be in need of it. This is the first of four Amendments to achieve this object.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 17, line 14, agreed to.

CLAUSE 25.—(Expenses of Minister in providing goods and services required for agriculture.)

Lords Amendment: In line 33, at the end, insert:
(2) Particulars of any such arrangements shall be laid before Parliament by the Minister as soon as may be after they are made.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
In Committee the point covered by the Amendment was raised by the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley), and I promised that we would try to meet the point. We have inserted this new Subsection in order to meet the arguments which the hon. Member advanced, and I hope it will satisfy him and his colleagues that we have met him as we promised.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: It is true that on the Committee stage or the Report stage a

promise was made by the right hon. Gentleman that any scheme under Clause 25 would be laid on the Table of the House, but I am convinced from conversations which have ensued since that there was an element of misunderstanding about the actual depth and width of the promise. However, I think the Amendment partially, if not wholly, fulfils the promise made. We contemplated the possibility of putting down an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, so that wherever a scheme was laid on the Table of the House of Commons it would be subject to a Prayer, whereby hon. Members who felt disposed to discuss the contents of any scheme would be permitted to do so. We learned, however, that although the scheme was laid on the Table of the House and there would be no opportunities for discussing the scheme, if Members of the Opposition or hon. Members in any part of the House felt disposed to discuss the scheme that had been laid on the Table, time would be arranged for that purpose. That being so, there is no reason for an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, and in the circumstances we are inclined to accept the Amendment.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. John Morgan: Does that mean, if my hon. Friend's statement is correct, that we shall be entitled to discuss a particular scheme if it is laid before the House, assuming that we ask to do so?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 26.—(Exclusion of certain holdings from Agricultural Holdings Act.)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 6, after "act," insert:
and thereafter until the beginning of the said term.

4.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Captain McEwen): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This matter concerns Scotland perhaps more than England. The active words in it are "from the commencement of the Act." When the Clause was discussed in Committee my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) stated


that it was open to criticism in that it failed to deal with two points both of which are met by the Amendments, the first of which I am now moving being introductory to the others. The Clause as drafted applied only to certain tenancies beginning after the commencement of the Act. It was pointed out that in many cases, particularly in Scotland, landlords and tenants had entered into contracts in anticipation of legislation of the kind being introduced. Accordingly, the Amendments now inserted make the provisions of the Clause retrospective from the date of the commencement of the war applicable to any case where the landlord satisfies an arbitrator, which, in the case of Scotland would be the Land Court, that the contract of tenancy would otherwise have come within the provisions of this Clause. The second defect pointed out was that whereas the Clause applied when an owner of land had been in the habit of letting it for grazing, it did not apply when an owner had himself occupied and grazed the land. The second Amendment of the series therefore deals with this point, as is only reasonable.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 25, line 14, agreed to.

CLAUSE 31.—(Application to Scotland.)

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 17, leave out from "them" to "this," in line 19, and insert:
or any question required to be determined by them under.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

4.42 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Some explanation might be given of this Amendment. Where a catchment board acting on the instructions of a war agricultural executive committee, produces a scheme for draining, it is quite proper for the owner of the land to be able to make submissions to the Minister. It is equally fair and reasonable to presume that where such observations are made to the Minister he would have to examine them and either to amend or leave the scheme as it was, according to his will or desire. Presumably, that is the only good point in the Amendment. What we ask is whether this procedure is likely to involve undue

delay in the putting into operation of any drainage scheme that may have been produced by a catchment board. If the Minister assures us that that is not intended, we have no objection to the Amendment.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I cannot give any definite assurance, but we are not going to have any delay. It is only fair to the Minister to consider the objections of all concerned.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Maryhill); I should like some explanation. The Scottish Land Court has been set up to deal with the question of appeals until the Minister has taken steps as laid down in the Bill. The Minister deals with a particular landlord or landowner. The original purpose was that the appeal should be made to the Scottish Land Court on a question on which the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken action. Can the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland give us an indication of what is meant by the words "or any question requiring to be determined"? What will the other questions be, other than those laid down in the Bill?

Captain McEwen: I am not clear as to what the hon. Member is referring. The only place where the Land Court comes in, in the matter of arbitration, is in Clause 26, and I do not think it comes in as an arbitrament board in any matter except in dealing with that particular case under Clause 26. I am not quite sure what it is the hon. Gentleman is referring to.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SOCIETIES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

4.46 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a small Bill which, I think, does not raise any truly controversial issues, and it is in line with other Measures which have been introduced since the beginning of the war in order to assist, whether it


be ourselves or outside bodies, in the transaction of business in the changed conditions of war-time. I will run through the Clauses. Four different groups of questions are raised, and for the convenience of the House I will explain them at no great length. First of all, I will refer to the definition Clause. It defines a society as
any trade union, friendly society or building society, any such unincorporated society as is mentioned in Section seven of the Building Societies Act, 1874, any society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1928, and any society certified under the Loan Societies Act, 1840.
So by and large that covers the great bulk of organisations of this type. The first Clause gives power to modify certain of the rules regarding meetings, the appointment of officers and the arrangements for amending rules. In the Great War a Measure similar to this was found to be necessary, and the Societies (Suspension of Meetings) Act was passed in 1917. Nowadays, with the difficulties of the black-out and evacuation, there is even greater need for a Measure of this sort than there was 20 years ago. Not only are many of these organisations scattered, owing to the war work they are doing, but with regard to the question of having conferences evacuation has made such a congestion in towns where conferences are likely to take place that it becomes necessary to prepare other measures. The first Clause deals with that aspect of the problem. The Committee of Management may apply to the Chief Registrar, and he may give directions on these various points.
We hoped to get this Bill through a good deal earlier because it would have made matters easier, but it was not possible owing to the pressure of other business. It may well be, knowing that this sort of Measure was to be introduced, that some societies may have anticipated its terms. Sub-section (3) of the first Clause gives the Chief Registrar authority to deal with such cases as that. The fourth Sub-section of the first Clause deals with the possibility, which may very well arise, of members objecting to the appointment of particular officers or to the amendment of rules which have been made under the procedure outlined earlier in the Clause, although with the direction of the Chief Registrar. There is therefore a safeguard in that the Chief Registrar may direct that the appointment

or the amendment to which objection has been taken shall cease to have effect at a given date unless it was confirmed in the ordinary way.
The second Clause is very much the same in its effect in that it makes it possible for the central body of a society to take the place of the Chief Registrar and give a direction so as to get uniformity and obtain the same safeguards with regard to the rules of the branches. I understand that there are some 80 such societies and 17,000 branches, and some procedure of this kind has been asked for by those concerned. The Government are not forcing anything upon the organisations, but it is at their request that these alterations are being made. The third Clause, I think, is obviously a necessity in regard to the postponement during the war of the whole of the ordinary basis of valuation. For the time being all such matters must be very difficult to estimate, quite apart from the fact that there is a great deal of work involved. This Bill is drafted extremely simply, and there is no difficulty in understanding what it means. The Clause merely deals with the position of societies which are affected by the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939, Section 10 of which provides that a society which was registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, before 26th July, 1938, and certified by the Registrar to be a society which could not now become so registered, can either convert itself into a company registered under the Companies Act, 1929, or amalgamate or transfer its engagements to such a company without payment of Stamp Duties provided it did so before 28th April this year. In the circumstances, since last September it may very well be that such societies may not have had the time nor the opportunity of doing it, and therefore there is a year's extension. I think it will be agreed by everybody that this is a wise decision. That is the first group of Clauses which deal with the modification of rules and statutory requirements.
The next group concerns Clauses 5 and 6, which deal with amalgamations and transfers of engagements of building societies and trade unions. This is a simplification of the existing procedure again, but is not limited to war time. It is therefore not a war emergency arrangement, but a continuing arrangement. It


is convenient to introduce it now because there may now be reasons for amalgamations which would not have been so obvious perhaps a little time back. The only point I wish to deal with in Clause 5 is that Sub-section (3) deals with building societies and associations in connection with cases which have aroused public attention at the time, where small but wealthy building societies, under the pretence of dissolving, effect the transfer of engagements to larger societies and when doing so large sums out of all proportion to what would have been proper compensation for loss of office were offered by the large societies and accepted by the officials of the smaller societies. It is because of that rather undesirable practice that the Sub-section (3) is inserted.
Now I will come to Clauses 7 and 8 in the next group, dealing with rights of persons engaged in war service. Clause 7 deals with the case of some friendly societies where apparently on joining the services of the Crown a member automatically loses, under the rules, his membership or his benefits. I would say that, of course, all these matters which are being dealt with in this Bill could be dealt with properly, so far as I know, by any individual society amending its rules, but in view of the war situation and of the labour involved, certain questions have been put to us asking that they might be covered as a whole. This is the provision in regard to the rights of members who are either called up or who voluntarily joined the Armed Forces of the Crown, and it provides that no rule or amendment of rule shall deprive such a member of his membership, but that his rights to any benefits shall be suspended so long as he fails to pay contributions.

Mr. Burke: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "These questions have been put to us, and we have received representations." Are we to understand that the three kinds of institutions which are dealt with in this Bill—building societies, friendly societies, and trade unions—have each of them asked for a measure along these lines to be introduced?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, that is as I understand it. The whole purpose is to get something agreed by everybody. I

do not wish this to be controversial, because if there is any controversy in connection with this Measure there is no object in the Government fathering it. Clause 8 brings me to a more difficult matter, because this Clause provides that persons who are otherwise entitled to benefits from societies in respect of war injuries should have those benefits reduced by the amount received under the Personal Injuries scheme. That is to say, if a person was injured and received benefit under the Government scheme, those benefits to which he might be entitled from his society would be pro tanto reduced. I gather that the object there was to try and protect the finances of societies which, when they had collected the various sums and had drawn out their benefits scheme, may not have had in mind the possibility of civilian casualties in time of war. On the other hand, it has been represented to me that there is by no means unanimous feeling about this Clause, and, if that is so, I will certainly be prepared to consider dropping it, because I do not want to ask the House to accept anything which is not generally agreed. As it is possible, as I said just now, for any society to make amendments in its own rules should it so desire, it would be better to let the Clause go on to the Committee stage rather than let any controversy arise about it.
The next group consists of Clause 9, which from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself is one in regard to which I should like publicly to express gratitude to the societies, because they came forward and suggested that they should be given powers as a result of which it would be possible for them to set up and administer rules for the purchase of defence bonds or national savings certificates, and in that way assist the great financial effort which is required for financing a war. Needless to say, that suggestion was warmly approved of by us. This is the Clause which makes it possible for that course of action to be taken. Having made sure that these societies are only too anxious to play their part in that way if they are given the authority, it may well be that we can look forward to a very large increase in the money going into the savings movement as a result of this Clause. The first lot of Clauses in the Bill were devised for the protection of societies and to


assist them to carry on, and the last Clause was devised to help the Government to carry on the financial burden of the war. We propose that the House should give a Second Reading to the Bill to-day, and we propose to take the Committee stage after Easter so that there will be ample time in the intervening period for consideration of any points which may arise to-day. So far as I know, it is an agreed Measure to facilitate the business of a great number of societies.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: We are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the clear statement he has made on the provisions of the Bill. On the surface it looks a very innocent little Measure, but on close examination there are certain points contained in it which are open to some criticism. Those who are closely connected with friendly societies and trade unions and who are not members of committees of management are a little alarmed at some of the provisions of the Measure. Since the war commenced we have been asked to pass certain Bills just to ratify arrangements which executives and companies had arrived at in conjunction with the Government. The other day we debated a Bill which was arranged between the insurance companies and the Government, and it fell to us as an Opposition to champion the cause of the millions of policy holders who never had a say at all as to whether the provisions of that Bill should be passed into law or not. I wish therefore to say a few words that an ordinary member of a friendly society or trade union might feel about a Measure of this kind. We do not intend to divide against the Bill to-day; but in Committee we shall move some Amendments which may probably be acceptable to the Government.

I was glad the right hon. and gallant Gentleman dwelt on Clause 8, because it is indeed a very fundamental section of the Bill. The largest part of the Bill need not be put into operation at all unless societies make a request to that effect. On the other hand, Clause 8 is mandatory, and in that sense the society would have to contract out of it, otherwise the mandatory provisions would operate automatically. The Measure, of course, is brought forward because of the national emergency. Were it not for the

war, some of us in the trade union movement would have nothing at all to do with some of its provisions. The fact is that we are not quite satisfied that the Government should interfere in the private affairs of friendly societies and trade unions; but we are at war, and consequently friendly societies and trade unions paying sickness benefit are very anxious to safeguard their funds and their organisation. I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not to emphasise unduly the difficulty of convening annual delegate meetings and the holding of committee meetings because of evacuation. Most trade unions, as far as I know, are carrying on their business now just the same as before, and I trust they may continue to do so.
I now come to the actual provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 gives committees of management of societies very large powers over their membership. When I point out one such power, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see why some of us are a little disturbed. Not only do you hand over to the committee of management all the powers of delegate meetings and of the branches of the organisation, but the committee can transfer those very powers to a sub-committee of its own. It does not say how many members shall compose that sub-committee; it may be only two or three; and so you may have a very large society with perhaps millions of members being governed during the emergency by just two or three members of its committee of management. Some of these friendly societies are colossal organisations. I believe one of them has investments amounting to £25,000,000. Therefore, we are dealing with rather important problems in this Bill. Clause 1 does something else; it allows the trustees and the officers to remain in their seats during the period of the war, following, I suppose, the practice of Parliament, with a sort of political truce inside the society or union. I do not know how the trade union rank and file will feel about that, but I should imagine that there will be some criticism of that provision if the war lasts, say, for five, seven or ten years and the same people are left in control as at the beginning of the conflict. I should think there would be some criticism of the provision that no election is to take place for certain officers. As a matter of fact, some trade unions are now holding elec-


tions annually just as if the war had not taken place. If I offered my own opinion I should say definitely that it is the business of a trade union or friendly society to undertake its own tasks without the Government intervening at all in its affairs. That is my personal view.
These committees of management can also amend rules without submitting the amendments at all to any delegate meeting or the membership of the society. That is rather an important provision. Clause 2 deals with registered branches of friendly societies; and there are thousands of these branches. There may be thousands in one single friendly society; every branch is a unit of its own and can deal with its own finances, pay what benefits it likes, and manage its own affairs; and its link with the central organisation is almost nothing more than a name. Under this Bill the central committee of a friendly society at its headquarters will be able to decide for each separate unit of the organisation what it ordinarily does for itself. Representatives of friendly societies have probably been to the Treasury asking for this Bill, but unless I am greatly mistaken they do not represent the membership of these thousands of separate branches on this issue. I apprehend that there will be criticism from them on the ground that they have not been consulted at all in regard to the power that is given over them. There may, of course, be very little objection to Clause 3, which suspends the quinquennial valuation of the funds of societies. At the same time if we are going to safeguard the funds of societies I should not like to see the valuation set aside for too long a period. Contribution income and benefit payments are, after all, based on what you can disburse as the result of actuarial calculations and valuations quinquennial or otherwise. Though I can see no objection at all to that I feel that we must not be too loose even on this point of valuation.
Clause 6 deals with amalgamation and transfer of engagements of trade unions. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us that this provision is going to be permanent. I want Members connected with trade unions to take particular note of that. Some people will argue that the amalgamation of trade unions ought to be made very much easier; that amalga-

mations have been frustrated because the present legal conditions are too onerous for the membership. In spite of that I should not like to give to the executive of any organisation such easy means of amalgamation which would offend the, membership.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was in some doubt about Clause 8 and there is quite frankly a division of opinion about it. Let me try to put both sides of the case. No friendly society or trade union paying sickness benefit has ever laid down in its scales of contribution anything to cover injuries which might be caused by a terrible air raid. To that extent the argument in favour of Clause 8 holds good and is very forcible. On the other hand, it is argued that you are doing an injustice to such members. An injured member may get £1 a week by way of pension from the State, and if the friendly society only paid 15s. sickness benefit he would not in that case get a penny piece from his friendly society. If on the other hand a member of a friendly society or trade union is injured at work in the course of his employment he will get workmen's compensation and sickness benefit as well and the same would apply if he recovered damages at Common Law. I do not know of any trade union or friendly society which asks a member claiming sickness benefit, when he is otherwise qualified for the benefit, "Do you belong to any other society? Do you draw compensation or benefits from any other source?" Those two arguments are pitted against each other and for my part the second is the stronger of the two.
There is another fundamental point in Clause 8. A friendly society or a trade union paying sickness or disablement benefit will have to contract out of it, otherwise it automatically operates over all societies alike. It is still possible, I hope, for a friendly society or a trade union paying sickness benefit to re-draft their scales of contributions and benefits to do exactly for themselves what Parliament is trying to do on their behalf in this Bill. Once again, I confess that, on balance, I would prefer the friendly societies and trade unions to do all this themselves; they know best how to do it. I gather from the right hon. and gallant Gentle-


man that building societies, friendly societies, and trade unions have made representations to the Government for this Bill. I wonder why on earth building societies have been mixed up with trade unions in this Bill? The Bill has several sets of Clauses. I should have preferred to see trade unions dealt with in one set of Clauses, building societies dealt with in another, and friendly societies dealt with in a third, instead of bundling them together in this way. My feelings on this Bill are not quite so definite as they are on other Measures; and, therefore, I hope the House will forgive me if I have tried to state the case just as a lawyer would put it if he were paid to do so.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Jagger: Like my hon. Friend, I approach the Bill with very mixed feelings. I will start by stressing the point at which my hon. Friend left off. Why did we have a Bill which made all these provisions for a certain number of chartered bodies, and then have a second Bill which lumps together three sets of societies, more different from each other than some of them are from the societies which are covered by the previous Bill? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the difficulty of holding conferences and delegate meetings and of consulting the members of these organisations, yet, in Clause 8, he provides that we have to hold these conferences and call these delegate meetings unless we are to be compelled by law to refuse to pay to our members the benefits for which they have contributed. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not mention it, but the only way of escape that I can see for any organisation which wants to carry out its obligations is for it to summon a special delegate meeting and to alter its rules, because Clause 8 says:
the amount of any payments by way of benefits for sickness or infirmity (other than benefits conferred by the National Health Insurance Act, 1936), which he would otherwise be entitled to receive from the society or union shall, unless the rules of the society or union expressly provide to the contrary, be reduced by the weekly amount….
Obviously, as there has never previously been any provision for compensation to be paid by the Government for war injuries to civilians, the rules of none of these organisations make any special pro-

vision. Unless we are to escape from honouring our obligations, we must hold those special delegate meetings, which, the Minister has said, it will be so difficult to hold, and the difficulty of holding which is given as a reason for the introduction of this Bill. As one who, only last week, was re-elected president of a very large union by an enormous majority, I must protest against the Government giving an opportunity to people like me to stay in our places without the formality of re-election.
Nothing has happened so far to make it impossible for us to have a meeting or to make it difficult for us to meet our obligations. Had those eventualities come, the Bill might have been too late; as they have not, I am inclined to think that it is perhaps a little too early. There is only one possible justification for the Bill that I can see. It is perfectly true that the calculations fixing the benefits to be paid by the friendly societies and trade unions do not include the calculations of war risks. As the State is undertaking that liability, it may well be argued that there is no serious injustice done to the person because he is deprived of the benefit—

Mr. Buchanan: Employers often undertake the liability of paying wages during sickness. Does the hon. Member argue that if wages are being paid, organisations should not pay sickness benefit to which their members are entitled?

Mr. Jagger: I was not saying that it was an advisable thing, but that the Government have undertaken this liability, and, therefore, it might be argued that the societies have been relieved of their obligations. It is possible that if civilians were injured on an enormous scale, the amount which the friendly societies and trade unions would have to pay in disability benefit would cripple them financially, and make them unable, at a later stage, to pay benefits for other forms of disability, caused otherwise than by the war. To that extent, I suppose, there is some justification for saying that the societies should have power so to safeguard the rights of their members who are not injured as a result of the war that the benefits they would otherwise have got should not be paid away to people already compensated in some way by the Government. That is, to me, the only possible


justification for the Bill. I do not know that my feelings in regard to this Measure are as mixed as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). In my mind, the bias is very largely in favour of saying that the trade unions and friendly societies can themselves be trusted to alter their rules in such ways as the emergency may make necessary; and I view with great apprehension this compulsory alteration, without any consultation with the members who have provided the funds.

5.25 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I want to say a few words on this Bill, because I have come into contact with building societies of late, and have been much interested in their activities. I am delighted to see this legislation, which aims at further support and encouragement of the organisations mentioned in the Bill, and also, to some extent, at the protection of the public. Recently, I put a Question concerning building societies to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; and, in reply, he said that a Bill was being introduced, and that it would contain provisions for the better protection of the public and would increase the powers of the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies. I wish the Registrar-General had been given still further powers. The trade unions, friendly societies, and building societies are part of our national life, and it needs no words of mine to point out what an unpayable debt we owe them for all that they have done for the people of this country. We are fortunate in possessing these organisations, but we are also fortunate in possessing, in the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies, a watchdog who does his utmost to promote their interest, and also to protect people against the errors which may at times creep into the management of all such organisations. Amid the wealth of virtue and good will and efficiency of these movements, we find that tiny percentage of error that runs like the "rogue's yarn" in naval rope, through almost every national activity and profession. It is that slight percentage of error which I hope Clause 5 will help to prevent.

It is a queer, unpleasant, but justifiable, reflection, that so much of our legislation is designed to protect the public against the misuse of power and

the acquisitive tendencies of a tiny minority. In saying that, I am fortified by the annual report of the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies. One or two paragraphs have a direct bearing on Clause 5 of this Bill. Of the building societies alone, I note that, since 1928, no fewer than 35 have been absorbed by larger concerns. I have no objection to absorption, but there can be, and often is, objection to the method of absorption. Something like 26 of them have been absorbed in the last four years, and all except one have been small concerns. The thing which puzzles, and bothers, me is that there has been competition among some of the larger societies to get hold of the assets, the good will, and the energies of the smaller societies. There is no harm in competition so long as it is properly controlled, but it is proved by the Registrar-General's report that this is not always the case. The report refers to the type of advertisement which is meant to attract some of the smaller societies into allowing themselves to be swallowed up by some of the larger societies. At the end of an advertisement, published in the "Building Society's Gazette," and inserted by the Brighton and Sussex Building Society, appear these words:
The Secretary of any society of which the board would care to consider proposals on these lines of amalgamation, whereby the officials and directors are amply safeguarded, should communicate in strict confidence with…..
Then follows the name of the managing director. I must confess that these two words "strict confidence" make no appeal to me. I do not like the idea at all, and I feel that it is not square and is not entirely above board. It should not be in strict confidence, or for the boards to go behind the backs of members of the societies. I would remind the House that in many instances the smaller societies are approached by several big societies. It is a form of approach which I am sure does not make an appeal to anybody in this House. There is another thing I would point out about the society in question concerning which I know practically nothing, except what I read in the report of the Registrar-General. Of one of the societies that was absorbed by the society that I have mentioned, the Registrar-General reported that the directors received payments representing about


61 years' salary, and that the secretary of the absorbed society received the equivalent of his salary in perpetuity. [Interruption.] I presume that these must be the facts if they are in the report of the Registrar-General. Is it any wonder that he asked for certain powers to enable him to investigate these matters? I do not know anything about the society where the directors received 61 years' salary, but I maintain that the members of these societies are not given sufficient consideration, and the thing ought to be much more open and put before the members of these societies.
As a further instance, I see that five small societies that were absorbed by a boa constrictor received only 18 per cent. of the reserves and unappropriated profits that had been built up by their energy and by their directorates over many years. But a higher figure—which goes to show again that the Registrar-General should have more power of investigation—one of 29 per cent. went in compensation to directors and officials, and 11 per cent. was used for expenses. I do not want to quote any more figures, but only to try and make a case for the protection of the members of these admirable societies, and I hope that I may be allowed in Committee to move an Amendment to Clause 5 still further to protect the members of these societies.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I rise to say a few words on this Bill, particularly in relation to Clause 8. I recognise from the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that this is not a Government Measure in the ordinary sense, but that it has really been introduced to oblige the parties concerned. I would like him, if possible, to look again at Clause 8. In some respects I do not agree with the provisions of certain other Clauses, but it is really Clause 8 to which I take exception. I do not like the provisions about meetings and the continuation of officers for long periods. I do not accept the view that it is impossible to collect votes because of the war emergency. The temptation to accept the provisions of Clause 1 enabling me to continue in office might be very great. I am the chairman of my union and I am due to retire in the next few months, and this Clause, I suppose, would allow me to continue in office. [An

HON. MEMBER: "If the Registrar-General agreed."] He would agree, and he agrees in other cases. I have not heard of any case where he has disagreed. I see no insuperable difficulties at all in the taking of votes.
But I feel strongly in regard to Clause 8, and I want to say something about the unjustifiable and unfair treatment of friendly society and trade union members who have paid for friendly society benefits. No one can defend that Clause on its merits. When one joined these societies war was not on the horizon, and it is unfair to ask these bodies to take on a war risk. That could be argued about a lot of other things, and I am surprised at hon. Members who have used that argument. When I joined a trade union and insured against unemployment, I did not expect that unemployment would reach the colossal figure of 3,000,000. Unemployment is a disease just as deadly as war, and, indeed, is a war in another form. When trade unions had to contend with 3,000,000 unemployed, they had to face a set of circumstances which they had not contemplated. The trade unions, with a few exceptions, came through the terrible depression with funds depleted and with serious inroads into their membership. There was no trade union that did not face up to that situation. They did not need to come to Parliament and ask for an Act of Parliament similar to the Measure that has been introduced to-day.
The union of which I am chairman has three benefits for its members—unemployment, sickness and superannuation. They are heavy commitments. When the depression came we found that we could not pay the unemployment, sickness and superannuation benefits for which the rules made provision, but we did not rush to Parliament to try and secure the passage of a Bill. We had to face the situation. Trade unions are empowered at any time to take measures to safeguard their finances. We had to reduce the sickness, unemployment and superannuation benefits, and increase contributions. We did this without reference to our members, but we had to face them for re-election, and not one of us was defeated. Here we are introducing a Bill which I do not think is really necessary. If it be a war risk, as the hon. Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger)


said, the executive should have power to act.
I believe that under Clause 8 the trade union and friendly society member is put in a worse position than the recipient of Poor Law relief. The first £1 of a disability pension is exempted under Poor Law relief, and also under unemployment assistance, but under this Bill there is no exemption for the member of a friendly society who receives a pension of £1 a week. It is said that the State compensates him. The private employer compensates the man under workmen's compensation. Does anybody suggest that because he is compensated by workmen's compensation, he ought not to get sickness benefit from a trade union or friendly society? A man with £1 a week disability pension is to get no friendly or trade union sickness benefit, but if he is hurt in another field of industry, he will get 30s., and shortly, in the case of married men, it is to be increased. He is to get his sickness benefit in full. I used to get £1 a week sickness benefit from my trade union, and 30s. if out of work. If I get hurt inside Fairfield Shipbuilding Yard, I get my friendly society money, but if I walk outside and get hurt by a splinter from a bomb, I get nothing. If I am knocked down by a motor car, I claim at common law for damages and receive, say, £1,000, and I get my friendly society benefit, but if I am injured by a bomb from the air and I receive £300, I get no friendly society benefit. Is there any defence to a position like that? I want to go further. There is not, in this Bill, a single safeguard for an aggrieved member who comes back, injured, from the war, and gets a miserable pension. I am surprised when people say that he is being compensated. If I join a friendly society, I do so in order to get something more than the man who does not join. What is the use of joining a friendly society and paying for benefit if I cannot get something more than the man who does not pay?
Take the case of two men coming out of the Army. One is a non-unionist and the other a trade unionist. One has paid, all his working days, 2s. a week to his union, and the other has not paid a penny. Both get £1 a week pension, and the one who is a trade unionist gets no

assistance, although he has paid for it, while the non-unionist also gets nothing, but with this difference—that he has never paid anything. The thing for which a man has contracted is not received by him. Frankly, there is no justification for this at all, and I say to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that we may well be faced with casualties. My views on the war are not popular, but so long as you have sickness members there is no justification for dealing with one member in a different way from another. They should all be treated alike. The Co-operative movement usually pays a man his full wages when he is away from work. He will receive his sickness benefit, but another man coming back from the Army, who may not have been in Co-operative employment and who receives a small pension, will get nothing at all. On the grounds of equity and human decency this should not be allowed. If you asked the average trade unionist to-morrow for power to raise the premium to cover this risk, every decent man of a union, and of a friendly society, would say that they would pay 1d. or 2d. a week more for this extra risk rather than see a man who has served his country treated worse than any other class of member. Under this Bill you have no right of appeal. The Ministry of Pensions says "You get this amount for an injury," and it is done. But a man may become ill again 12 months later, and have paid contributions for the 12 months, and the Minister says, "You are off again for the second time because of this injury, and no sickness benefit will be paid." Clause 8 is a shockingly reactionary Clause, and I trust we shall not proceed with it.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Naylor (Southwark, South-East): I find myself largely in agreement with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I approach this Bill from the point of view of an unofficial member of a friendly society and of a trade union, and I ask myself whether there is anything in the Bill that could not be done by a friendly society or a trade union without any assistance whatever from the State. The Bill proposes to eliminate the right of the ordinary member of these societies to say whether or not he will agree to continue membership on the


terms on which he joined. This is to be done without any prior consultation with the members affected. One might well ask, especially of the Law Officers of the Crown, whether these members, not having been consulted, agreed to a Measure of this kind and whether it is legally or morally right that they should have forced upon them an Act of Parliament upon which they have offered no opinion and to which their executives have no authority, under their rules, to consent.
I object to the Bill largely on principle, and that applies to Clause 1 as well as Clause 8. It is proposed to delegate the powers now possessed by these democratic societies into the hands of the committees of management without the members themselves having previously been consulted. I am also opposed to the principle on the ground that there is nothing in the Bill that could not be prescribed, by properly adopted rules, by a friendly society or a trade union. I know of one trade union which, three months ago, recognised that there was a possibility of serious charges becoming due, and, desiring to preserve themselves against these adverse conditions, passed a rule providing that the executive could, if, in their opinion, the emergency justified it, modify or reduce benefits. What one union has done others could have done, and it is not too late for them to do it now. Conditions are comparatively normal so far as holding meetings and the taking of ballots are concerned, and it ought to be possible for the friendly societies and unions to call their members together and ask them whether they would modify their rules to protect themselves against the circumstances which might arise as the result of war, or whether they would be prepared to conform to the conditions laid down in this Measure.
Clause 7 is certainly something which commends itself to me. It says that the mere suspension of payments of contributions by men of the Services shall not disentitle them to the benefit of the rules. I am wondering whether that applies to trade unions as well as friendly societies, because it is not quite clear as the Clause reads. One would suppose that it applies only to friendly societies, and perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will make that clear. I refer to this because I wonder whether this is some kind of

sugar coating for the bitter pill contained in Clause 8. If we are prepared to hand over these powers by passing a Measure of this kind, without the men and women affected being consulted, I think we should be false to the interests of all members of a democracy, of which we form a part. What becomes of our democratic principles if we are to go over the heads of the members of the societies and do this injurious thing?
The hon. Member for Gorbals, in referring to Clause 8, dealt with the case of a man who happens to be in receipt of compensation on account of war service, or is a casualty in an air raid, and is deprived of the benefit for which he has paid. Supposing this Clause ultimately stands in the Bill, what about those members who have paid considerable sums, amounting to many shillings per week, for benefits? Is there to be any refund of those contributions in the event of their being deprived of benefit? If they make payments for certain benefits, and those benefits are taken away because of the provisions of this Bill, surely they ought to be entitled to a refund of the contributions they have paid. That seems to me to be a necessary corollary in a Clause of this description. While the Second Reading is to be allowed to go through, I hope that there will be substantial alterations made in the Bill in Committee. Otherwise it seems to me that those who are in favour of our democratic institutions will be unable to vote in support of the Third Reading. If I do not challenge the Second Reading of this Bill, it is only because I am more loyal to my party than to my own convictions.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for some observations made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I was intrigued by the argument which he put forward, and which was repeated by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, but when he made reference to the fact that the trade unionists will be deprived of benefit, I, with great respect, beg to differ. The trade unionist is not to be robbed of benefit if I understand the Clause aright. The hon. Member for Gorbals says that the member pays his contributions to meet the contingencies of industrial life. It is quite


true that if this Bill is passed the obligations on the trade unions will remain precisely the same: to meet the liability of the industrial worker if he should fall sick, whether through a motor accident, the weather, some industrial disease, or is receiving workmen's compensation. When this particular Clause is passed those liabilities remain unimpaired. The member has not paid for the liability which the Bill intends to cover. It is a liability which is peculiar to the war situation. It is wrong and misleading to suggest that something is being taken from the member of a trade union or friendly society because they must meet every liability which they have undertaken to meet. This is an additional liability which has never been contemplated, and is a liability due to war conditions.

Mr. Buchanan: Then the hon. Member would stop paying funeral benefit if the member was killed in the war?

Mr. Oliver: It makes no difference when the death occurs; the liability is there for the trade union. With respect to the death benefit, there can be no doubt that the obligation of the trade union and friendly society must be met. The point I am emphasising is that this is a liability which the trade unions have not undertaken but which the Bill seeks to meet, and thus relieve trade unions from the obligation. It is an obligation the magnitude of which no one can foretell. It may be of such enormous dimensions that many trade unions would be insolvent if they attempted to meet such a liability.

Mr. Naylor: It may be next to nothing; and where will the member be? The Bill is based on the assumption that there are going to be great disasters, that large numbers of members will be hurt in the war and that trade unions and friendly societies will not be able to pay the benefits. Experience has shown that it is not persons but property that suffers in air raids, but the member is still under the compulsion of this Bill.

Mr. Oliver: That may be true, but the principle is not at all distorted, whether it is one person or a thousand persons. The liability is peculiar to war conditions, and it is a liability from whch the Bill seeks to relieve trade unions. I cannot

see how the principle can be vitiated whether it is one unfortunate member who is injured or a dozen unfortunate members. But provision is made so that trade unions, if they wish, can alter their rules and pay benefit to those members who are injured as a result of war conditions. It is quite competent for a trade union at their next revision so to amend their rules that they can incorporate this liability in their rules and pay their members. [Interruption.] I only want to point out to the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) that in the Bill there is provision for adjustment if trade unions do not like it, but I think there will be very few trade unions which will so amend their rules as to incorporate the liability in the Bill. If the trade unions are incensed about it they have the remedy in their own hands on the next occasion when the rules revision committee meets. On Clause 1 the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) referred to officers being appointed for the duration of the war. I have read the Clause closely, and I think that is quite an erroneous conclusion to draw. The Clause says "for the period which the Registrar determines," and in Sub-section (4) there is a check. If the members of an organisation object to the executive or officials holding their jobs too long this Sub-section would come into operation and representations could be made to the Registrar of Friendly Societies objecting to a prolongation of the period.
From September of last year I know that there have been many factors operating in trade unions which have made it impossible for them to conform to the rules which have been provided by the rule-making body, and one can think that circumstances may arise in this country when it will be completely impossible for trade unions, friendly societies, or building societies to subscribe religiously to the rules which bind them. I think it is a wise contingency that if Clause 1 is not to the liking of an organisation they have no reason to employ it, they can keep away from it altogether; it does not affect trade unions if they do not wish to employ it. I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not read the Clause with his usual diligence. My only complaint about the Bill is that it groups three different bodies together, and criticisms which one might apply to one group may


not be applicable to the others. I can only speak in respect of trade unions because of my long and early association with them, and I cannot see very great objections to the Bill. There may be some, and when the Committee stage is reached one or two appropriate Amendments may be submitted.

6.9 p.m.

Major Milner: In my view this Bill contains some valuable provisions but also a number of matters to which attention should be directed. I am a little surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver). I cannot conceive why Clause 8 should have been inserted. I cannot conceive why it should not be open to any individual who suffers injury by reason of the war to draw the amount which this House has provided under the Personal Injuries Act and also to draw the benefit for which he has paid for a number of years to his trade union or friendly society. I do not know what authority the Financial Secretary has for bringing forward this proposal. It would, it is true, affect a saving in the funds of trade unions and friendly societies, but I take the view that there being a war on there is an additional risk on all. It is surely, therefore, perfectly competent for those who are so unfortunate as to be injured—they may be few or many—to receive the compensation which the State has provided and also the benefit for which they have paid as a member of a trade union or friendly society. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will consider carefully whether this particular Clause ought to remain in the Bill.
As to the general principle, I think the provision in Clause 1 to enable the rules and the practice of trade unions and friendly societies to be modified is a useful provision. I recognise that there is a case to be made out that in some degree our democratic rights as members of these organisations may have to be interfered with, but at the same time these powers are purely permissive and I think we can rely on the Chief Registrar to look at any proposals very carefully and to have regard to the interests of the members of the organisations concerned. In my view, therefore, some, if not all, of the provisions with regard to trade unions and friendly societies might very well be supported in the House.
I really rose, however, to address myself to the question of building societies. I think I am the father of the proposal to make the provisions for amalgamating building societies more simple than they are at present. On the Second Reading of the Building Societies Bill, almost a year ago, I expressed regret that some such provision was not included in that Bill. But if I am not the father, it may be that the Chief Registrar is the step-father. There are some 900 building societies in this country, of varying degrees of strength, financial and otherwise. In war-time and in a time of financial stringency through which we may have to pass I think it is particularly desirable that there should be facilities whereby smaller societies, not necessarily less sound societies, but those societies which for one reason or another do not feel competent themselves to carry on during these difficult times, or which think that they cannot render proper service to their members, should be able to bring about an amalgamation with a larger or stronger society, provided that the terms of the amalgamation are fully disclosed and that it is carried through, as I understand will be largely the case, under the general direction of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.
The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) referred to this matter, and I do not know that I take any very great exception to what he said, except that he mentioned one society in particular and seemed to imply that it was necessarily a sinister matter to insert an advertisement asking for particulars to be furnished in strict confidence. I hold no brief for that society, but I do not think it ought to be said that an advertisement inviting particulars to be furnished in strict confidence in a matter of this sort is necessarily sinister: Surely, these matters are necessarily confidential, at any rate in the first stages. There may be cases where there are improper practices, but certainly, I do not think that the insertion of an advertisement by a society like that mentioned which I believe to be of the highest repute should be considered to be in any way sinister. The essential thing is that the full facts should be disclosed, and that any compensation payable should not be disproportionate or unfair having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the vacated office.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I did not wish to quote the name of any society. My whole object in speaking was to deal with the general principle of the protection of the members, but I found it impossible not to quote the name because I was reading from the report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. There was nothing in my mind directed against any society.

Major Milner: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for making that plain. Clearly, on general principles, the matter of amalgamation is an important one, and it is right that provision should be made whereby it can be brought about in a simpler fashion and under proper control. The real point of this provision, and indeed of most of the provisions of the Bill, is that the trade unions, friendly societies and building societies concerned are brought rather more closely under the survey, and indeed, even under the direction, of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. That is all to the good. At present, as in the past, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies carries out his statutory duties with exemplary care, patience and capacity; he is one of our most useful officials, acting as he does primarily in the public interest. I welcome the fact that he is to have a rather greater say in these matters than he has had in the past.
There are several other matters in connection with trade unions, friendly societies and building societies which I should like to see dealt with. I particularly welcome the fact that the Chief Registrar will have full knowledge of, and some control over, the question of the compensation, and so on, paid to the directors and officials of building societies. I do not think anyone ought to jump to the conclusion that those payments are necessarily wrong. The amounts must, of course, largely depend upon the length of service of the director or official concerned, but if they are proper payments, which are fully disclosed and which have the approval of the members of the society, I see no objection to them.
There is one matter which I think ought to receive the attention of directors of building societies and indeed of public companies also, particularly at a time when the maxim is, "Equality of sacrifice." Only a few days ago, it was brought to my notice that the rules of

one society—and probably of very many others—and certainly the Articles of some public companies provide for the payment of directors' remuneration free of tax. I think that it places a very great burden on the members of the societies if they are to be called upon to pay the very much increased Income Tax of the last Budget, and possibly the still more greatly increased Income Tax of the next Budget which could never have been foreseen by the members. It ought also to be made clear that the provisions of the Bill—at any rate, as I understand them—do not do away with the necessity of the members giving their approval. The Bill will do away with the necessity for the shareholders approval, but I understand it will still be necessary to have a resolution passed by three-quarters of the members present at a general meeting called for the purpose. For the reasons I have given, I think that, in general, the Bill deserves to receive our support, but I feel that on the Committee stage and in particular on Clause 8, there ought to be some considerable amendment.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: I do not know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been surprised by the rather mixed reception which this innocent little Measure has received. He submitted it to us in a most disarming way; he really was not interested in it, the Government were not interested in it, but people outside had asked them to bring forward the Bill. I take it that one of the bodies which approached the Government was the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, and I suppose it was that fact which led my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) to be rather more impartial and objective than he usually is. I share many of the misgivings on Clause 8 that have been expressed from this side of the House, and I welcome the Financial Secretary's statement that if that matter proves to be too controversial, consideration will be given to the question whether Clause 8 should be proceeded with. In any case, the Bill will not be considered in Committee until after the Easter Recess, and by that time we shall have clearer views as to whether or not we want Clause 8 to be incorporated.

With regard to Clause 1, a great deal of the discussion seems to have been


based on the assumption that we are living in normal times. We are not. I welcome the provisions of this Clause, which will enable trade unions to carry on whatever may be the circumstances of the time and whatever may be the dislocation in our national life. Trade unions are governed by rules, and those rules are binding upon the executive committees of the trade unions. The term of office of the officers is also a matter that is governed by the provisions in the rules. Circumstances might easily arise in which a rule would need to be amended in the interests of all the members of the trade union. For instance, it might be found that the funds of a union could not in war time stand the charges which the existing rules would impose upon them. Something would have to be done to meet the situation, and the only way in which that could be done, under the rules, would be to call a national conference representative of all the branches. It might be a physical impossibility, in the conditions of the time, to call together the representatives of the branches and to take a vote. Many trade unions hold annual conferences at which 500 or 1,000 delegates attend. The situation at the time when such a conference was called might be such that the chief constable of the town in which the conference was to beheld would not permit the meeting because of the risks that would be involved. Therefore, were it not for the provisions of this Bill, the executive of the union would be in an impossible position. They would continue in office with no right to do so, they would seek to operate under rules that were no longer possible, and indeed, the whole situation would become entirely impossible.
Clause 1 gives trade unions the right to apply to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies in order to get a relaxation of the rules or the substitution of amended rules, on certain conditions. Some of the semi-jocular remarks that have been made in various speeches might lead one to think that a trade union official could make application to the Chief Registrar in order that he might remain in office merely because he wanted to do so. That would not be possible. The Chief Registrar has to be satisfied that, by reason of circumstances attributable to the emergency, the alteration in the rules, or the continuation in office, should be authorised. It seems to me

that the principle of this Clause is the principle of appointing an arbitrator, someone who is impartial and outside the trade union movement, to give a decision on the question whether the rules should be amended if the executive, in their judgment, deem it to be wise to amend them. Under the provisions of the Clause, if circumstances arise in which the rules cannot be amended because it is impossible to summon an annual conference—which at present is the only way in which the rules can be amended—authority can be obtained from the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, in whom the whole trade union movement has the utmost confidence and who will give an impartial and fair verdict on the question whether the rules should be altered. Therefore, as we may very shortly encounter circumstances in which ordinary trade union organisation is no longer possible, and yet, as everybody will agree, the trade union organisation must be carried on, I think it is a wise thing that someone should have approached the Government and persuaded them to introduce a Measure to enable the trade union movement to carry on whatever may be the circumstances of the future.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Collindridge: I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury does not think that because we criticise the Bill we feel that there is nothing good in it. It would be foolish to say that there are not good points in the Bill, but I think that the discussion will have convinced the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that certain parts of the Bill will have to be amended. Although, generally, the speeches that are made from these benches are true to type and seek the same objectives, on this occasion there has been a difference of opinion. I hope that the Minister will consider the strong plea that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) with regard to Clause 8. I differ to some extent from my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I am very much concerned with Clause 1, and particularly Subsection (2) of that Clause. I view with some degree of diffidence the power which is given to decide that meetings shall not be held. In my trade union, the Yorkshire Miners'Association, and the friendly society movement, with which I am connected—at least the rank and file of the members—would, I think, wish their


meetings to go on untrammelled. It is a safety-valve if an emergency arises that the members' representatives can be called together to deal with the situation. My association have had some idea of what war may mean in this regard. After the first month of war the representatives were called together and they immediately decided that in the emergency all members serving with the Colours should be allowed, without contributions, the continuing benefits which they would have had if they had remained in civilian life. I can, however, visualise instances which might arise and which could not be dealt with in that particular way.
I believe that this legislation must have resulted from the atmosphere existing at the beginning of war, but, for my part, I would say that the more we keep to normal conditions the better. We are fighting here for democracy, and I wonder what the rank and file of trade union movements, or friendly societies, would feel if they were prevented from making their voices heard. If at the end of a year, as frequently happens, there is a surplus, friendly societies arrange a system of distributing greater benefits amongst their members. While I do not suggest that an executive would be precluded from doing that by this legislation, members would not have the same chance of expressing their views. Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 is also a very dangerous provision. It says:
Where, on the application of the committee of management of any society within 12 months after the passing of this Act, the Chief Registrar is satisfied that before the passing of this Act there has been, by reason of circumstances attributable to the emergency, failure to comply with the rules of the society or any statutory requirement….
It goes on to say that this will be agreed to. I think that that is hardly in accordance with the democratic principles upon which friendly societies and trade unions have been founded. The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) struck, I think, a correct note when he said that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had endeavoured to link together organisations which had dissimilar tendencies. I think the effect of joining trade unions and friendly societies who generally conduct their business in a certain form, with certain organisations who act differently is altogether wrong. I feel sure that if this

legislation had been submitted to the trade unions, or friendly societies they would certainly, on the point I have mentioned, have decided to vote against it.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: We can all recall the memorable Parliament when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a member of the Opposition and set himself, almost every night, to throw discord into the ranks of the Labour party. He is up to his old tricks again. I suppose that my task which is not a very enviable one is to pour a little oil on the troubled waters. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman accepted paternity for this Measure, although I am bound to say he hardly said a kind word about the child. Nevertheless there are, I shall not say valuable features in the Bill, but features which have been rendered necessary, and, indeed, inevitable, by the war emergency. Whatever may be said by way of adverse criticism on certain Clauses, there is ample justification for a Measure of this kind. No one can tell what is to happen in the next few months, or, it may be, in the next few years. There may be heavy casualties and in consequence the funds of societies affected by this Measure may be seriously depleted. Some of these organisations are under contractual obligation to their members, and some provision, therefore, is necessary for the relaxation of rules in that emergency so that they may keep faith, as far as may be, with their membership.

It must be confessed that if this were a normal occasion we should be justified in taking very strong exception to Clause 1, because, undoubtedly, it places very wide powers in the hands of the committee of management or executive of the organisations concerned. It may be, indeed I think it is necessary that there should be some Amendment of this Clause on the Committee stage. For example, in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, it will be observed that the committee of management may exercise functions which, ordinarily, are vested in the whole membership. That is a provision of a very sweeping character. What are the functions of the membership as represented by a delegate conference? They are very varied, but they include the right of dissolution, and I should like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say


whether, if the Clause is passed in its present form, a committee of management or an executive of any of the organisations affected, would have the right without appeal to the membership to dissolve the organisation. Some protection is necessary in that respect. Moreover, I take it that if the Clause is passed in its present form it will enable an executive body to increase the salaries of officials, without considering the views of the members, and while that might be highly satisfactory from the standpoint of the executive, it would be regarded as highly detrimental to the interests of the members.
Over and above that, the Clause provides that a sub-committee may exercise the functions ordinarily vested in the committee or the general body of members, so that we may find ourselves in a position in which two or three members may decide the conduct, and determine the administration of an organisation affecting several thousands of people. That, I think, is highly unsatisfactory. At the same time, I welcome the first part of the Clause. It is permissive in character and enables an organisation, whatever it may be, a trade union, friendly society, industrial insurance society, or building society—although it may not occur in the latter case—to approach the Chief Registrar and seek for a relaxation of rules. I am content. I think that places all the power which is necessary in war time in the hands of an executive body for the purpose of carrying on the administration of an organisation. As I hope to show in a moment or two, it may be, subject to what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may say later, that this makes it unnecessary to proceed with Clause 9 in its present form.
May I say now a word about the Chief Registrar? Frequently that gentleman comes in for considerable criticism, but I do not join in that criticism, because my view is that, generally speaking, he holds the balance fairly as between an organisation and its members. From my knowledge of industrial insurance societies, and having read the annual reports of the Industrial Insurance Commissioner, which is another name for the Chief Registrar, I can say that, almost invariably, any partiality he displays is in the direction of the members. So it appears to me that if in a particular emergency one of the

organisations affected seeks the direction of the Chief Registrar, it is almost inevitable, having regard to his knowledge of the situation, that he will give such a direction as will safeguard the members, while leaving sufficient power in the hands of the executive to enable the administration of an organisation to be satisfactorily conducted.
I come now to Clause 8which has given rise to considerable variation of opinions. First of all I wish to ask a question, and perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will oblige me by giving an answer, if he can, at this stage. The purpose of Clause 8 is to give power to an organisation to reduce benefits, not as regards all its members, but as regards one section, namely, those who suffer from war casualties and who, in consequence, receive benefit at the hands of the State. Suppose a society declines to avail itself of this provision. The Clause says
the society or union shall, unless the rules of the society or union expressly provide to the contrary.
I fail to see how the latter provision is to operate, but if an organisation is, under its rules, expected to reduce benefits in a certain contingency but declines to reduce them, what happens? There is no penalty Clause in the Bill. If you say to a trade union, "You have refused to reduce benefits in a particular case where someone has received £1 from the Ministry of Pensions," you cannot take the union to court or summon any member of the executive. If you did, what charge would lie against them and what penalty could be imposed under this Measure? It would appear that, in spite of the obligatory provision making it incumbent upon the organisation to reduce benefits, the matter remains where it was if the organisation declines to do so. I do not know who drafted the Bill, but I am certain it was not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Whoever drafted it left out this method of imposing the obligation on the organisation affected. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will advance his opinions on that point.
There are, on the whole, excellent reasons why in certain circumstances benefits should be reduced. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in one respect. If there is to be a reduction in benefits on the ground


of financial stringency because funds are depleted owing to war casualties, it ought to apply to everyone alike. There ought to be no discrimination. On the other hand, it may be impracticable to adopt such a proposal and that may be the reason why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested that this Clause might be abandoned. That view has been supported to some extent by hon. Members on this side. I express no opinion about it. It is a matter for consideration. The hon. Member for Gorbals seemed to speak somewhat illogically with regard to Clause 8. He said that, after all, the trade unions can do this if they like, and obviously, apart from the present situation before the Bill passes, they could, if Clause I passed, have vested in them special powers. That is to say, the committee of management could do what is ordinarily done by the whole membership at a delegate conference. To that extent my hon. Friend is right, but if that is so, if they can do all this and if the Clause passed even in its present form, they would still have the power, because they have vested in them certain rights under the protection of the Chief Registrar, not to put Clause 8 into operation. That being so, I do not see any serious objection to the passing of Clause 8.

Mr. Buchanan: Other than this, that they all clamour to get on the executive, and for goodness sake do not let them get away from their responsibilities and make Parliament do their dirty work. If the executive wants to reduce benefits let them do so, but do not let them run away from the responsibility of doing it.

Mr. Shinwell: There is a great deal to be said for that point of view. Not being a member of any executive, except the executive on this bench, an unpaid executive with no funds to dispense and, therefore, with very little power—

Mr. Buchanan: But with great hopes for the future.

Mr. Shinwell: I am bound to say that hopes for the future are not confined to those who sit on the Front Bench. It would be a very sad thought if that were so. I agree with my hon. Friend that Parliament ought not to be asked to undertake a task which properly resides in the organisation itself. Frequently,

however, we are called upon to undertake tasks which other people are not prepared to undertake. That is the purpose of Parliament and its main function. That being so, I should not make too much fuss about it. I venture to say to my hon. Friends that, while there are certain features of the Bill which must be closely examined on the Committee stage and seriously amended, we ought to accept the Bill and appeal to the Financial Secretary to respond to the wishes that have been expressed so that we may make this a useful Measure which will assist the organisations concerned in a time of national emergency.

6.53 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) accused me of throwing discord into the party opposite. I should put it rather that he has exposed what we have always suspected to be latent. When he says that there is ample justification for the Bill, I agree with him. I am sorry if he did not think I was very enthusiastic in propounding its provisions, but the Bill is not one that lends itself to wild enthusiasm. It is a purely businesslike Measure and tries to facilitate certain things which the times make it necessary to have speeded up or dealt with in other than the usual way. I admit that to that extent Parliament is giving attention to matters which, in ordinary times, are the proper business of these societies. That is because Parliament can, in a large way, help them along and save them a great deal of unnecessary trouble in war-time.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if this were an ordinary occasion strong exception would be taken to Clause 1. If it were an ordinary occasion there would be no Clause 1. Of course, one could never tell what would happen under a Labour Government, but I was speaking of normal times. In normal times it would not enter into the ideas of Parliament to deal with detailed matters of this kind affecting these societies—great, independent bodies which do so much good in their respective spheres. But we are not in ordinary times and the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins), the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) as well as the hon. Member for Seaham took a realistic view of the situation. The hon. Member for Ilkeston said that one could not tell from day to day what will happen in war-time, and the


hon. Member for Central Hackney welcomed the Clause because these were extraordinary times and the Clause would make it possible for trade unions to carry on, whatever happened. That applies to the other bodies as well, and it is the fundamental reason for most of the proposals in the Bill.
Some two hours ago, the Question was proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," but the Debate has really been mainly on whether Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill or not. I am not surprised, because I said in my opening remarks that I felt considerable doubt about the wisdom of the Clause and several hon. Gentlemen have asked me to say why it was in the Bill. I will answer that question in this way. As regards the financial problems which are raised by Clause 8, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is right in saying that societies can safeguard themselves by amending their rules; and he suggested that they should call for higher premiums if necessary because it is within their power to do that. The assumption, I think, was that in view of what is feared about whether there will be a great number of casualties or not—and whether there is likely to be a great financial strain none of us can say—it was likely that societies would probably want to do something of this kind.
If that assumption was correct the view was that this Clause was a reasonably workmanlike way of doing it. I admit that the Clause as it stands requires drafting Amendments. The general trend of the Debate however rather points the other way and the view of the House apparently is that the Clause should not be kept in the Bill. The hon. Member for Seaham did not come down on either side of the fence or say whether he wanted the Clause or not. The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate thought it had better come out, and most of the other hon. Members who spoke took that view. It looks to me, therefore, that the feeling of the House this afternoon is that it is not quite right that Parliament in a matter of this kind should do the work of these societies, and the impression I got was that hon. Members would prefer societies to deal with this matter as they want to. I shall carefully weigh up what has been said to see whether or not it is necessary to leave the Clause in the Bill at all or whether it would not be wiser,

as the hon. Member for Gorbals said, to leave it to the societies to deal with the problem as they want to and when they want to, rather than by way of a Clause like this, out of which it would be possible for them to contract.
I would only add a word to say how much I appreciate what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) and the hon. Member for Seaham—and the same note was running through some of the other speeches—in recognition of the very able and fair way in which these difficult problems were handled by the Chief Registrar and the confidence which hon. Members have shown in putting into his hands the powers sought for in this Bill. As to the building societies, I would say that it is true that the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds can claim some share in advancing the proposals which are in the Bill, and as to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) we will see that under the Sub-section of Clause 5 to which he alluded, some of the worst standards which he brought to our notice can be, and presumably will be, dealt with. After the discussion we have had and on my assurance that I will carefully consider whether we should retain Clause 8 at all in view of the feeling of hon. Members opposite being against it, I hope the House will now let us have the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday, 2nd April.—[Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.]

Orders of the Day — SPECIAL ENACTMENTS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL. [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

7.2 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bernays): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, which was passed without opposition in another place, proposes to make provisions similar to those included in the Special Acts (Extension of Time) Act, 1915. Its predecessor was unanimously accepted by both Houses, and I hope that this Bill will follow that pre-


cedent. I do not think it contains anything which could cause discord either in the party opposite or among my hon. Friends. As the House will be aware, if a local authority or a statutory undertaker wants to construct new works it has normally to obtain authority by means of Private Bill legislation, and Parliament, in granting such authority as it sees fit, imposes a time limit. In peace-time an undertaker may find the programme is delayed, and there is risk that the works will not be finished by the prescribed date. It is right and proper in such a case that the undertaker should have to come back to Parliament with a further Private Bill and satisfy Parliament as to the reason for the delay before any extension of time is granted. Under war conditions the circumstances are obviously very different. It is very likely that, if there is delay, it is not due to any fault of the undertaker. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has good reasons for restricting borrowing, and there are the inevitable restrictions on materials like timber and steel, and, of course, there are conflicting demands for man-power. In such circumstances I think the House will agree that it would be unreasonable to impose upon undertakers the burden and expense of carrying through further Private Bill legislation in order to get their time limits extended.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does this mean a temporary abrogation of the right of a Member of Parliament to block a Bill that may come forward?

Mr. Bernays: No, Sir. This Bill enables a Minister of the Crown to consider the prayer of the undertakers for an extension of time. It is concerned with an extension of time for projects to which Parliament has already given its approval. The relative phrase is at the end of Subsection (1) of Clause 1, where it says that if the Minister is satisfied
that such modification is requisite or expedient by reason of any circumstances directly or indirectly attributable to war
then, after due notice to the parties concerned, and, if need be, after a local inquiry, he may publish in the "Gazette" an order extending the time limit.
There are two differences between this Bill and the Act which was passed in 1915, and I think the House will agree

that they are necessary differences. The Act of 1915 gave power to extend time-limits for one year only, without prejudice, of course, to a further extension. His Majesty's Government have publicly announced that they are preparing for a war lasting three years, and the present Bill therefore enables the Minister to give an extension of three years instead of merely one year. We have carefully considered the question, raised in another place, whether the three years' extension might tend in any way to reduce the volume of public work available to absorb labour in the demobilisation period. There are many problematical factors involved, and I can give the assurance that, if the House sees fit to pass the Bill into law, we will see that the Departments are specifically asked, when exercising power under this Bill, to give particular consideration to the possible effect of any proposed extension of time on the post-war labour situation. If, for instance, it seemed likely when an extension of time was asked for that the war were shortly coming to an end, then the appropriate Minister would take that into account and might grant an extension for only a short period.
Another new feature of the Bill is found in Clause 1 (3, b), where we say that the duties and powers to which this Act applies include
any power to purchase, or power of re-entry exercisable in relation to, a public utility undertaking, or part of such an undertaking.
That is rendered necessary by the Electric Lighting Act, 1888. That Act and subsequent Acts gave local authorities an option to purchase certain electricity undertakings at the end of 42 years, and if that right is not then exercised, it revives at intervals of 10 years. As it was clear that these options could not mature until 1930, and it was not thought, even in the gloomy days of 1915, that the war would last until 1930, it was not regarded as a sufficiently live issue to call for legislation at that time. To-day the position is different, because these options are now becoming exercisable, but war conditions will in general make it impossible for local authorities to avail themselves of the options. This is true also of certain other undertakings, such as gas and water. The Bill therefore provides that on the application of any interested party for


an extension of the time at which the option shall become exercisable the application may be granted, with, of course, corresponding adjustments of the dates of subsequent options. I think the House will agree that that is reasonable. Difficult questions may be involved in proposals to exercise purchase rights, and it might be unfair to more than one party that they should have to be handled in the middle of a war, with the knowledge that if the power were not then exercised it would go into cold storage for another 10 years. There is one technical point that is new. The Application to Scotland Clause in the Bill is necessitated by the passage of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936. I hope after this explanation that the Bill will win the same general acceptance as did its predecessor in 1915.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: I see that Clause 4 makes the Bill applicable to Scotland, and I notice that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is here. There is a passage in Clause 4 which is underlined. It is only underlined with a single line. If our Whips are underlined with three lines, we know it is something serious, but even with one line it is evident that they wish to draw attention to the fact that something is going on, and I should like the Undersecretary of State for Scotland to explain what this really means. It says:
(b) Sub-section (3) of Section two shall have effect as if Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933, applied to Scotland with the substitution of references to an order for references to a summons, and the omission of the word 'summarily' in Subsection (4) and of the words from 'and every such order' in Sub-section (5) to the end of the Sub-section.
To bring something like that before us in this haphazard fashion is to treat Scotland a little too cheaply. It might mean anything. It is all right for the lawyers over there to be smiling away, but this is how Scotland has been "diddled" time and time again, and we look to you, Mr. Speaker, to safeguard the rights and privileges of private Members. We have to keep a watch here because there is a war going on and the Government are making that the excuse for filching from us all the rights we have. That is why I asked whether the Bill meant filching away from us our right to stop any Private Bill that

might be brought before the House. I should like to have an explanation from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland of what Clause 4 does.:

7.15 p.m.

Captain McEwen: May I be permitted to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood)? His eagle eye has, with its usual perspicacity, taken in various facts, among others that there is an underlined paragraph in Clause 4. The underlining merely means that this particular paragraph was taken out of the Bill on the Third Reading in another place on the ground of Privilege, and the fact of its being underlined once rather than twice or thrice has no further significance. With regard to this particular Clause, as the hon. Gentleman will know, and indeed as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has already said, the promotion of Scottish private legislation is governed by the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, in the terms of which the promoters are required to proceed by presenting a petition to the Secretary of State praying him to issue a provisional order.
I would say at this point that the fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbarton Burghs on the score of the rights of private Members are entirely unfounded. The first paragraph of the Scottish application Clause in the present Bill, which is the Clause of which we are now speaking, provides that where it is desired to extend the time limit in an order or Bill under the 1936 Act, the appropriate Minister shall be the Secretary of State, and Clause 4 (b) to which reference has been made makes the necessary Scottish adaptation in Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which are applied by this Clause. I hope that with these few words of explanation and with my assurance, the hon. Gentleman will believe that no filching of rights, Scottish or otherwise, is being attempted by this Bill and that he will be satisfied with that explanation.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Ede: This is a necessary and useful Measure, and my hon. Friends and I are offering no opposition to it. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has


given us a reasonably clear explanation of the Measure, and we hope that it will be administered in the spirit of his speech, because undoubtedly it may be very necessary to grant some of these orders for less than the maximum period, having regard to the necessity there may be at some stage, let us hope in the not too distant future, to resume a good many of the activities which this Bill proposes to give us powers to postpone. Of course, one way of meeting the situation might be in certain cases not to grant the order for the full three years, because the Bill is quite clear on the point that postponement is to be for not more than three years, and therefore presumably an order made for less than three years would be valid; and if it is not already in the Bill, arrangements should be made for its extension if at the end of the period for which it was granted it appeared desirable to do so. Nothing should be done to make it difficult to start public works if they should be needed.
More particularly do I desire to direct my remarks to the suggestions with regard to the exercise of purchase rights of local authorities over electricity undertakings. In this matter the Government are moving with what, judged by the standard they accept, we must regard as commendable speed, because it was on 15th November last year that I drew attention to the necessity for this matter. They have taken only just over four months, and at the rate at which they do most things they are probably exceeding the speed limit; and the hon. Gentleman may find himself in difficulty with his own Department about that matter. This is a vitally important matter, and I hope that the period that the Government and the local authorities and the electricity industry generally will gain through this Bill will not be lost, but that an effort will be made to see this problem in its modern aspects as distinct from the aspect that it bore in those far-off days of 1888 when electric lighting was coming into vogue in this country.
It is curious that in those days, although we had a Conservative Government in office, no one doubted that in the long run the ownership of the electricity undertakings should properly be in the hands of the local authority. The order was granted to the local authority. They could lease it to a company, but at

the end of 42 years that order was to revert to the local authority subject to their paying the persons to whom it had been leased a reasonable compensation at the end of the 42 years for the value of the undertaking as it then would exist. So that it was recognised even in that very Conservative House of Commons that the principle of public ownership of an electricity undertaking was the right and normal thing. Of course, a good many of the orders in the country have, in fact, been worked by the local authorities. I believe the majority of the electricity undertakers in the country are local authorities, at any rate as far as England and Wales are concerned. It is only with regard to those areas in which the companies have obtained a lease of an order that this matter arises.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we are reaching the time now when a large number of these orders are falling in. Forty-two years ago from now takes us back to 1898, and it was during the nineties of the last century and the first decade of this century that a very large number of these orders were granted in areas which have since developed very considerably, and it would have been quite fatal to the original conception of Parliament if this period of 42 years had been allowed to run out during the period of the present war. It is clear that the Treasury will not sanction the raising by the local authorities of the necessary loans to acquire these undertakings during the war.
I have here a list of the undertakings within the area of the London and the Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority over which purchase rights become exercisable within the next five years. It shows the importance of this particular matter at this particular date because if you take just one block of local authorities some of the most valuable undertakings in the outer London area will come under this purchase option during the next five years. In the area supplied by the North Metropolitan Electricity Company the purchase rights in respect of Enfield become exercisable on 22nd July, 1944; in Edmonton they become exercisable on 24th July, 1942; in Hertford and the neighbouring parishes under a special order they become exercisable on any 29th March at two years' notice; in Southgate they become exercisable on 2nd August, 1945; and in Tottenham


they become exercisable on 31st December of this year. In St. Albans they become exercisable on 26th September, 1942, and in Slough there is a special right that is exercisable now by one year's notice. There are various other important parishes in the immediate vicinity of London where these purchase rights are almost immediately exercisable and will probably be affected by this Bill. Therefore, this is a Measure which is exceedingly desirable, and my hon. Friends and I welcome it as giving the local authorities a real chance of exercising their option in circumstances more favourable than those existing at the moment.
There is one other matter to which I must allude before I leave this subject. The position that arose in the county of London after the last war gives us a very serious warning with regard to what may possibly happen in the areas that I have mentioned. The right under the 1888 Act is to purchase at the value of the undertakings at the date at which the purchase is exercisable, quite irrespective of what was the original cost of the assets taken over. The rights in London became exercisable just after the last war when values were very considerably inflated owing to the temporarily high cost of materials, and the replacement value of the copper alone at that date was so great that the responsible committee of the London County Council held that it was impossible to exercise those rights with any economic justification at that time. I do not want to go into the political controversy that arose on the London County Council with regard to this matter; the London County Council was then in different hands from those which now control it, and a very bitter controversy arose. I am giving the view that was advanced by the responsible committee in those days for not exercising the purchase rights and in agreeing to the postponement of their exercise until the year 1971. It seems only fair that if purchase rights in the neighbourhood of London and throughout the country are to be postponed in the way provided in this Bill, there should be some arrangement by which the public who may have to exercise these purchase rights should not find their position worse as a result of a purely artificial increase in the values created by the conditions that may arise out of this war. I hope the lesson that was brought home, I think, to all con-

cerned by the history of the negotiations on the inner circle of London after the last war will not be lost when provision has to be made for this particular phase of the matter to be dealt with. It is proposed to put down an Amendment before the Committee stage that will raise this matter quite directly, and I trust as there will be some days in which the Amendment can be seen the hon. Gentleman and his Department will give some attention to the point I have just raised.
There is one other matter I think the hon. Gentleman ought to give his attention to while he has the breathing space that this Bill will provide. In 1888 no one foresaw the immense development that electric lighting was going to achieve during the 42 years that these orders ran. Further, I venture to say no one in 1888 foresaw the Local Government Act of 1929 and the very complicated review of county districts which took place under it. The effect of these two things together has been to make such a mosaic of the electricity map when it is imposed on the local government map as to make it almost impossible in many cases to exercise these purchase rights because of complications that have arisen. Because a little bit of an undertaking has been transferred for local convenience from one local authority to another the consequence is that the purchase rights in respect of that small piece are exercised by a different local authority from the local authority that exercises rights in regard to the larger piece. The orders have virtually been amalgamated through companies like the North Metropolitan Company which have developed a system so intertwined that to abstract one piece may inflict serious technical injury on the whole. These great complications are making the original intentions of Parliament to secure ultimate public ownership of electricity supply exceedingly difficult of achievement. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that either by a Departmental Committee or in some other way he should use the time this Bill gives him to ensure when the normal functioning of the Electric Lighting Act is resumed it shall be resumed in an atmosphere of reality in which the original intentions of Parliament can have a reasonable chance of being achieved. As I have indicated, we welcome the Bill. It will do something to make these purchase


rights really exercisable, but there are so many complications now that I trust the hon. Gentleman will use some of the time at his disposal to make the Act of 1888 a reality instead of a futility as it applies to these complicated cases.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: There are certain Clauses embodied in the Bill by which the privileges of local government authorities are affected more than we thought they would be. The first question I would ask the Minister is whether the local authorities have been consulted in regard to this Measure. If not, will they be consulted before the Committee stage? My next point is to ask for an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary, although the question was raised in another place, but there are several lessons I have learned in this House. This is not a personal matter. One of the lessons I have learned is that you cannot place too much reliance on what is said in the House. It is what is contained in a Bill that matters, and I do not want the Parliamentary Secretary to take this to himself personally. I have learned more and more by listening to Debates in the House, assurances given by Ministers, and through following court proceedings in the "Times" from day to day.
Under Clause 1 the Minister has very wide powers, and I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether any assurance that he has given can be put in more concrete form during the Committee stage in order that many of my hon. Friends, some of whom have had to leave, can be reassured. In my own locality we suffer more from mining subsidence than any other area in the country. The miners'society has spent a tremendous amount of money dealing with it locally. They also got the House to pass a Bill, but although it was passed it was thrown out in another place. Does the Clause dealing with public works mean that if the Bill was passed after the war, they would have to wait three years to carry out public works of this kind? I remember that after the last war a large number of men were unemployed for a considerable time, and the county councils and the municipalities and other public bodies desired to carry out as much public work as possible. This will be the position in a more intensified way after this war.

Therefore, between now and the Committee stage, will the Parliamentary Secretary consult his advisers and other people in order to see that this is put into more concrete form?

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: Might I reinforce that appeal? I have listened to the arguments of the Under-Secretary and listened to his arguments in regard to the Extension of Time Act of 1915 as related to the present Bill. If the argument had been advanced towards the second portion of the Bill, the one dealing with undertakings about which my hon. Friend has spoken, I could have understood it, but I cannot understand the argument in relation to the first portion of the Bill. It seems that the Bill applies only to those powers obtained or now running or that will be sought during the progress of the war; that is, private Bills which have been obtained and under which work is either being carried out or is already put forward. Anyone who comes to the House in war time asking for powers to carry out work must have a very good case, or it must be an urgent necessity, otherwise the House will not grant the order and the Treasury will not grant the money. I cannot see the possibility of this being held up by war circumstances, because it would probably be those circumstances that had led to powers being granted.

In these circumstances and in these conditions, why extend the period of time beyond 12 months? The numbers will surely be few in which extensions will be sought or in which powers will be sought under present circumstances. Therefore, it seems to me the Minister will have ample time to devote to considering these questions if 12 months were the limit instead of three years. I can see many conditions happening in three years and work that ought to be carried out being shelved and the terms granted under the Bill being used for the purpose of shelving the work. The Minister has power under this Bill to grant an extension for periods of less than three years, but I am afraid the order as set out in the Bill will become the accepted thing, and if it is 12 months instead of three years, he can make any power he requires, particularly in regard to Sub-section (3, a). In regard to (3, b), I can see the strength of the argument in regard to three years. Even if the war finishes. I would not plead for


an alteration in that regard. In regard to the first, I think he would not only have the confidence of the local authorities in the matter, but it would be to his advantage and that of the House generally and would strengthen rather than weaken the Bill if this were done.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I wish to raise a more detailed point. Though I agree that one would welcome the Bill, we do want some assurance in regard to it under Clause 1, Subsection (3), where there are these words:
any duty or power imposed or conferred by a local or private Act…or an order.
That raises the question in the minds of local authorities whether the orders will be under the Local Education Act, the Public Health Act, or the Public Works Facilities Act. It is quite certain that some orders may be covered by the Bill, particularly in respect of housing. But these orders should be defined as local Acts or Acts of a private nature. A doubt as to whether the Bill applies to these orders arose by reason of the fact that the orders themselves do not contain any time limit. If they are incorporated under the Section of the Land Consolidation Act, a time limit of three years is fixed. There is considerable doubt as to whether or not the Clause does cover that. If the Minister can give an assurance, a great deal of anxiety will be set at rest among all those responsible for its administration.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: I would like to express my appreciation of the manner in which this Bill has been received. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said we have taken four months to do it, but with his expert knowledge of the subject he will understand that a Bill of this kind has required a great deal of negotiation. One main question has been put to me, and I understand there is some anxiety in the House on the subject. I am asked to extend the period to one year instead of three years. Three years is a period that has advantages from the point of view of administration. I have given firm assurances, and it will be possible for the Department concerned, in granting a further period, to take into careful consideration the possible effect on post-war labour questions of any proposed extension of time. On the point made by

the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), who says that what matters is what is in the Bill, not what is said in the House, I agree, but I cannot make my assurances more concrete than I have made them. If, however, the hon. Members will put down an Amendment on the Committee stage, I will give it very careful consideration and take the sentiments of the Committee on that Amendment. The hon. Member for Stoke also asked me whether local authorities had been consulted. The local authorities' associations have been most carefully consulted. The hon. Member for South Shields raised an interesting point as to what might happen in London where, after the war, local authorities might be in the position of having to pay very inflated values. He informed the House that he intends to put down an Amendment. I do not know whether his ingenuity will enable him to get such an Amendment on the Paper. I am not sure that it comes within the scope of the Bill. Of course, I will give careful consideration to what he has said, and I will consult my advisers between now and the Committee stage./

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, for Tuesday, 2nd April.—[Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.]

Orders of the Day — SOLICITORS (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

7.46 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As the House knows, the solicitors' profession and its organisation is regulated largely by Statute. This Bill is designed to enable modifications of the statute machinery to be made in circumstances arising out of war conditions, and, in particular, for the benefit of those who are training as solicitors who may be serving in the forces or otherwise engaged on war work. It does for the Law Society and the solicitors' profession very much the same kind of thing that was done for the universities of Oxford and Cambridge under an Act passed some little time ago and for other universities


and chartered bodies under a somewhat later Act. If hon. Members look through the Bill they will see the sort of matters with which it deals. I hope it will be regarded as a useful and non-controversial Measure.
Clause 1 gives the Council of the Law Society power to grant exemption from passing the intermediate examination on account of circumstances connected with or arising out of the present emergency. In the ordinary course, a solicitor's articled clerk has to pass a preliminary, an intermediate and a final examination. There may well be cases in which an articled clerk is away for a year or more—we cannot say how many years—and it would be quite reasonable to let him off the intermediate examination. He will, of course, have to pass the final examination. Clause 2 gives power to allow earlier presentation for the final examination. Under the principal Act an articled clerk can only present himself for final examination at the end of his articles or thereafter. This Clause will enable someone who is, perhaps, within six months or a year or even 18 months of the end of his articles, and feels that he can get through the final examination, to take it now, perhaps before he is called up for service. Clause 3 enables the Council to reckon national service as service under articles in certain cases, particularly of course in war circumstances.
As the House knows, the full period of articles is five years. In certain cases where a man has a law degree from a university that period may be reduced to three years, and in other cases where he has taken a law course but not a full degree it can be reduced to four years. This Clause enables the Council to reckon national service, no matter into which of these categories an articled clerk falls, as part of the qualifying period with the proviso that he must have had at least two years' actual employment as an articled clerk. Clause 4 deals with a subsidiary matter. It provides for cases in which, under present regulations, if a course of legal instruction of a certain kind has been taken it counts for, I think, a year's articles. Where a man is not able to complete the course and therefore is not entitled under existing regulations to that concession, the Council is entitled

to permit a reduction in the term of service.
Clause 5 deals with prizes, scholarships and so on. It is, of course, the inevitable result of war not only that those serving as articled clerks may be taken away but that others will not enter into their articles. There may well be prizes and scholarships for which there is no real application at the present time, and it is much better in the interest of everybody that there should be power to suspend their award and that the money accumulated should be made available to help those who continue or start as articled clerks after the war. Clause 6 provides that powers exercisable by the Master of the Rolls may be exercised under his direction by a judge of the High Court. That enables possible emergencies, such as, for instance, disorganisation by air raids, to be dealt with, and the Clause is on the same lines as provisions in other Bills which the House has passed. Clause 7 enables the Law Society to reduce, if they think fit, the statutory number of examinations, which at present is three in every year. Then follows an interpretation Clause, and after that there is a Clause dealing with Scotland. The House will see that, so far as Scotland is concerned, the Bill only deals with the question of periods of national service being taken into account as part of the qualifying period. The reason for that is that the other matters dealt with in this Bill are not in Scotland at present regulated by Statute, and difficulties which arise therefore can be dealt with under the present organisation of the profession in Scotland.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs): I should like to ask a question on Clause 9. That Clause says that the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland may, at their discretion, permit the whole or any part of the period of service to be reckoned as actual service under indentures for the purposes of this Act. There is nothing extraordinary in that, because in May of last year I got the managing director of John Brown and Company to give a lead to the shipbuilding industry in this country so that apprentices would have their time counted while they were in the Army. I know, however, of a very hard case in my constituency and I would like to know whether it is possible to give any help in that case under this Bill. It is the case of a young solicitor who is now


in the Army—he was a Territorial—and whose father, now over 70 years of age, has built up a good business. I want to know whether there is any possibility under this Bill, of getting that young man out of the Army in order that he may assist in carrying on his father's business which has been built up as a result of a life's work? Unless he can be got out of the Army, that business will be ruined, and I would like to know whether the Attorney-General can assist, under this Bill, in a case of that kind?

7.55 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: There are some questions which I would like to ask about this Bill. As far as I am concerned, I object to a Bill of this kind. The Attorney-General told us that the legal profession is regulated by Statute. That is perfectly true, but there are thousands and even millions of people in this country who will be affected by this war and I should like to ask why preferential treatment should be given to members of the legal profession. I want to know, in the first place, whether I am right in saying that Clauses 7, 8 and 9 are not limited to the duration of the war?

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt in order to give him an explanation I think it may save time. The original Bill introduced in another place did contain Clauses which did not relate to war conditions, but they are not in the Bill presented to this House.

Mr. Smith: The next point I want to put has reference to the statement of the Attorney-General that before articled clerks are called up for service, Clause 2 will apply to them and they will be allowed earlier presentation for the final examination. There are thousands of young men thinking of their position in this matter, and I do not think it would be right for us to sit here and see this Bill go through without making some observations on this point. Thousands of young men are being called up. I think that the calling up is being done more fairly than was the case during the last war, but the whole future of these young men is at stake. If one small section of the community is to have the future safeguarded for them by a Bill of this character, it seems to me that there is something wrong. It means that there will be preferential treatment.
Take the case of apprentices for example. Parents of working-class boys have to make great sacrifices in order that their sons may get the technical and theoretical equipment to enable them to become skilled craftsmen. They are taken away at the age of 20. Their parents are not saying much about it because they realise the position in which the country is, but it is a little annoying to feel that, while one section of the community is safeguarded, our lads are being called up at the age of 20. I would like to refer also to the case of superannuated people and pensioners. They cannot have their future safeguarded. We know what happened to the policemen after the last war. While we have agreed not to oppose this Bill, we do think that the Government ought to introduce a Measure to safeguard these other people as far as possible. If that cannot be done, they should not have introduced a Measure of this kind to deal with a few well-placed people.

7.59 p.m.

Major Milner: I feel that my hon. Friend's speech is based on a misapprehension. No special preference is given to articled clerks. This Bill has no reference to calling up. As far as I know, articled clerks will be subject to calling up just as are apprentices in any other class. As far as I am concerned, and I think I might speak in this matter for the legal profession, they do not want any preferential treatment of that kind. The sole purpose of this Bill is to grant certain exemptions from examinations and so on to articled clerks—that is to say, young men who are apprenticed, to use a more familiar expression—and to enable them to count the period during which they serve in His Majesty's Forces as part of the period for which they would normally be articled and have to serve with a solicitor. To that extent it is true that the object of the Bill is to ensure that articled clerks, who are mostly between 17 and 22, should suffer as little as possible by the war. I do not think any special preference is being granted to members of the legal profession. They are subject to being called up, like the rest of the community, and I am not aware that they are asking for any special privileges. I believe that similar provisions were passed during the last war, and I hope they will be passed on this occasion. I should, however, welcome any more general provisions


which will put other sections of the community on the same basis if—which I do not think is the case—any special favour is being conferred by the Bill.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: The only special favour which it can be suggested is conferred by the Bill is that the practice of the law is determined by enactments and, when changes are taking place, there must be changes in the law in order that solicitors may practise according to that law. To that extent, they are, I will not say a privileged but a favoured class. The conditions under which they carry out their work are laid down by Act of Parliament. It is very necessary that it should be so when we remember the kind of work that they are doing, because it is for their interpretation of Acts of Parliament that those who are not in that privileged class may be called upon to pay, and perhaps pay "through the nose." I am concerned that these people should understand their business, as long as they are necessary. I should like to ask whether the safeguards which are being provided, in regard to those who will be excused from certain portions of the normal procedure, are sufficient to guarantee that they will be fully qualified to carry out their work as solicitors when the time comes for them to do so. I believe it is necessary that some leniency should be shown, and an individual allowed to sit for his final examination without having passed his intermediate examination. That seems to me a wise procedure, unless there is something in the intermediate examination which is not contained in the final and is essential to the carrying out of the person's work as a solicitor when he is qualified. If that is the case, then to the extent that the intermediate examination is being passed over, we may get less-qualified solicitors at the end of this period.
Clause 5 deals with the power to suspend the award of prizes if necessary. I understand that these prizes are at present granted under Act of Parliament, and I should imagine, from the phrasing of the Clause, that they must be awarded from year to year. In war circumstances the examinations at which the prizes are granted may not be carried on as they have been, and certain amounts of money will accumulate. This Clause, if

I read it aright, gives the Law Society power to spend that money as and when they think fit. It seems to me that, if we are safeguarding the interests of those who are being called up, there should be something in the power that is granted to ensure that the generation which is suffering as a consequence of the war, should have the benefit of those awards which are not now being given because the war is in operation. I think if some words could be inserted by which the House would give a lead to the Society in exercise of that power, it would be a step in the right direction. It appears, to me that power is being given to the Law Society to amend the principal Act, under which it is compulsory that so many preliminary, intermediate and final examinations should be held in a year. Are we giving them power to abandon examinations altogether if they so desire—to determine that no examination shall be held in that year? If it is so, it seems to me that it is too great a power. I have had a lot of trouble during the last few months with parents who spent a good deal of time and money in bringing children up to the age of 18, and qualifying them, as they thought, to sit for Civil Service examinations. It has been decided that on account of the war, Civil Service examinations shall be abandoned for the year, and it seems to the parents that their time has been wasted. I do not want to give the Law Society power to abandon these examinations. Does the Clause mean that they have power to vary them or to abandon them altogether?

8.7 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) put a specific case, if I understood him aright, not of a person who was indentured but of an admitted solicitor who desired to get back to look after his father's business. The hon. Member will have to approach the War Office on that matter, if he has not already done so, because it is quite outside the Bill. I should like to disabuse the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) in the attitude which he took up towards the Bill. I think I can do so by referring him to what the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs said. He pointed out that he persuaded Messrs. John Brown to do this very matter in respect of engineering


apprentices. No one had to come to Parliament in order to enable Messrs. John Brown to do that.

Mr. Kirkwood: Following that, it was agreed between the Employers' Federation and the trade unions that it should apply all over Great Britain.

The Attorney-General: The point that I wanted to make is that here the Law Society want to make the same concession that the engineering trade has done, because they think it right, but they cannot do it unless Parliament gives them leave, and it is not therefore giving anyone a special privilege. It is enabling a body which Parliament has restricted in its action to do acts which other people can do without coming to Parliament. If the hon. Member realises that, he will realise that this is not quite the sort of Bill that he thought. I would also point out that bodies which carry on a somewhat similar educational function, universities and so on, some of which are also tied by Statute, have received from the House the same power of elasticity in modifying their regulations as we are conferring on the Law Society. Speaking generally, any body which is tied down in that way and wants to do what the House considers reasonable will have the sympathy of the House in enabling it to act in this way.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) raised two points, one on Clause 5 with regard to prizes, scholarships and awards. It is always difficult not to tie people up too tightly in putting in words what they are to do in circumstances at present unforeseeable in detail. One can have little doubt that the Law Society will do its best to ensure that people are not hampered in their career through serving their country. I will look into it and see whether it is possible to put anything into the Bill, but I cannot say at present. I read Clause 7 as meaning that at least one examination will be held every year. That is the inten-

tion of the Law Society, and, in my view, that is what they are legally bound to do under the Clause.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday, 2nd April.—[Mr. Boulton.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the urban district of Malvern, a copy of which was presented to this House on 18th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the county borough of Reading, a copy of which was presented to this House on 18th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the borough of Hemel Hempstead, a copy of which was presented to this House on 18th March, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the borough of Royal Tunbridge Wells, a copy of which was presented to this House on 18th March, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Boulton.]

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter after Eight o'Clock.